FAO No.1413 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1413 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.05.2011 General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-I, Chandigarh and Anr ... Appellants Versus Kanwaljit Kaur and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the appellants. Mr. H.S. Bedi, Advocate for Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation on behalf the appellants. The appeal has been filed by the General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking against the award of compensation determined for death of its driver, who was earning Rs.3,410/- per month. The accident had taken place when he was driving the bus belonging to Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and in his attempt to save buffalo, he was alleged to have swerved the vehicle which went out of control and fell into ditches. The wife and children of the deceased filed a petition for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. FAO No.1413 of 2000 (O&M) -2- 2. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.4,32,800/- as the loss of dependency and added Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and last rites. The Tribunal has also added another Rs.1 lakh for loss of love and affection and consortium. The contention raised in the appeal by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking is that the accident was resultant by the driver's own negligence and hence his family members could not make the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel appearing for respondents-claimants would submit that he was not responsible for the accident as the same happened due to a buffalo suddenly crossing the road and it was an inevitable accident. According to him, so long as the accident was the use of motor vehicle, the petition under Section 163-A was maintainable. 3. In a situation where a buffalo crosses the road and the driver loses the control of the vehicle in order to save it and drives the vehicle into ditches, apparently it must be seen as rash and negligent driving of the driver. A road crossing by buffalo and an attempt to save the buffalo does not drive the vehicle into ditches. I cannot accept the plea that a petition under Section 163-A is maintainable. The case, if at all, must have been prosecuted under Workmen's Compensation Act for death resulting to a workman in the course of employment. 4. This Court is also a Court of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in pursuant to Workman's Compensation Tribunal. The computation should have been made under Section 4 of the W.C. Act. At the time when the appeal was admitted and notice was served, a Bench of this Court has allowed Rs.50,000/- to be paid and recovery beyond Rs.4,50,000/- was stayed. The Tribunal, while assessing compensation, had also provided over a lakh of rupees towards loss of consortium and funeral FAO No.1413 of 2000 (O&M) -3- expenses etc. When an application is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no scope for making any deviation from the compensation provided under Schedule II, the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium shall only be Rs.5000/-, Rs.2500/- for loss of state and Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses. In all the total amount under the conventional heads could not have been more than Rs.9500/-. A provision for a lakh of rupees made under the award was clearly wrong. If the amount is calculated under the Workmen's Compensation Act under Section 4, the amount of compensation would fall below Rs.4,50,000/-. I do not propose to modify the award to any further reduction and maintain the amount determined at the stage of service of notice and restrict compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- which was permitted to be executed under the interim orders of this Court. 5. The award is modified and sustained for different reasons than how the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal. 6. The appeal stands disposed of in the light of the directions given above. MAY 09, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE