IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.750 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.8.2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Depot Bathinda and another … Appellants Versus Davinder Singh and others …Respondents FAO No.751 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.8.2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Depot Bathinda and another … Appellants Versus Davinder Singh and others …Respondents FAO No.3571 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.8.2009 Davinder Singh … Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others …Respondents FAO No.3572 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.8.2009 Davinder Singh … Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant in FAO Nos.750 & 751 of 2008 Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for claimant-appellants. Mr.M.S.Joshi, Advocate for respondent (Darshan Singh) A.N.Jindal, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of four FAOs i.e. FAO.750 of 2008, FAO No.751 of 2008 both filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Depot Bathinda, appellant (hereinafter referred to Corporation) FAO No.750 of 2008 for dismissal of the claim petition, FAO No.3571 filed by Devinder Singh etc. for enhancement of the compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum granted to them on account of death of his father Sarup Singh and FAO No.3572 of 2008 for enhancement filed by him (Davinder Singh) on account of death of his mother, Balbir Kaur in the motor vehicular accident. Factual background of the case is that on 18.6.2005 Sarup Singh, since deceased and his wife Balbir Kaur were traveling in car bearing registration No.DL-3CH/8513, being driven by Khushdeep Singh. At about 1:30 p.m. when they reached near the refinery road, Bagha, the respondent No.1, Darshan Singh while driving bus bearing registration No.PB- 11A/9230 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Bagha side and struck against the car. Resultantly, both Sarup Singh and Balbir Kaur died. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether deceased Sarup Singh died because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident having been caused by respondent No.1, Darshan Singh on 18.6.2005 at about 6:00 a.m. in the area of Bagha on account of driving of bus No.PB- 11-A-9230 rashly and negligently and hitting the same against car No.DL-3CH-8513 being driven by Khushdeep Singh, since deceased? OPP 2. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 1 & 2. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation. If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP. 4. Relief. 2 FAO No.750 of 2008 To prove the negligence, claimant examined Amarjit Singh, PW-1 and Devinder Singh, PW-2. Amarjit Singh while appearing as witness, has apprised about the time, place and the manner in which accident took place. He further stated that Darshan Singh, respondent No.1, after crossing refinery road, was proceeding to village Sekhu, In the meantime, the respondent no.1 while driving the bus in rash and negligent manner, came at the crossing and struck against the Maruti car and dragged it towards village Sekhu. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of the witness which may be sufficient to challenge his credibility and trustworthiness. The FIR proved on the record (which was lodged by Khusdeep Singh, driver) it corroborates the case set up by the claimant. To the contrary testimony of Darshan Singh, respondent is not believable but his admission that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident goes a long way to prove that he is responsible for the accident. However, his plea stands unsupported by any evidence. Thus, the appeals filed by the PRTC are liable to fail. Now coming to the appeals filed by Devinder Singh for enhancement. In FAO No.3572 of 2008, the Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,56,000/ on account of death of Balbir Kaur aged about 55 years. The Tribunal has determined his income as Rs.24,00/- per month on account of the reason that she was house wife. Her contribution towards the family was determined as Rs.24,00/-. Thus, while applying the multiplier of eight, compensation payable to the complainant comes to Rs.1,56,000/-. No further grounds for enhancing the compensation are made out. 3 FAO No.750 of 2008 Similarly, in FAO No.3571 of 2008, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the complainant on account of death of his father Sarup Singh who was 57 years old and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.6600/- per month. He would have retired within a year. However, the tribunal while taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and after deducting 1/3rd share out of his salary, which he may be spending upon himself, determined his dependency as Rs.4000/- P.M. whereas net dependency should have been determined as Rs.4400/- thus while considering his income as Rs.4400/- PM, the claimant should have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.373600/- Resultantly, finding no merit in appeal Nos.750, 751 and 3572 of 2008, the same are dismissed. However, the FAO Nos.3571 of 2007 is partly accepted and it is ordered that the claimant would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.33600/- over and above the award amount along with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. [ A.N. Jindal ] Judge 11.08.2009 sd 4