FAO No.817 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.817 of 2011 Date of Decision. 25.01.2011 General Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala and others ......Appellants Versus Mrs. Rajender Kaur wife of Baldev Singh age 38 years and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation that owned the vehicle in a case where the Tribunal adopted Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as a ground for fastening the liability. The attempt of the owner and driver was to show that the deceased was trying to get into a moving vehicle and he slipped and fell down. No part of negligence could be attributed to the driver and there was no justification for finding the appellant liable for the consequences for the accident. 3. A strict liability norm which Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act enunciates, dispenses with the requirement of having to prove negligence on the part of the respondents. All that is necessary FAO No.817 of 2011 -2- to show is that the accident took place and the death or injury arose by the use of such motor vehicle. These two factors are available. The issue of whether the driver was negligent or not is irrelevant. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushunuma Begum Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited AIR 2001 SC 485 that examined the issue of the requirement of proof of negligence and brought out through its judgment the concept of strict liability that had its genesis in an early English decision in Riglands Vs. Fletcher. I find that there is valid legal ground to sustain the claim and it is, in my view, irrelevant that the Tribunal did not find that the driver of the bus was negligent for the accident. 4. He was a student studying in BA 1st year and the learned counsel contends that no basis has been spelt out in the award of the Tribunal as to how the notional income was taken. The overall compensation that has been taken as Rs.2,33,000/- for a boy who was aged 22 years including Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium cannot be taken to be totally off the mark to make an intervention. If the petition was treated as one under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there ought not to have been a deviation from the scale of compensation which is set out there. The provision for Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses was not appropriate, it could have been only Rs.2000/- and there is again no scope for consideration of the issue of loss of consortium for a claim by the parents. The consortium is only to be understood in the context of what could be the loss for a spouse for the death of the other. This makes an addition of about Rs.8,000/- but I do not think it should still FAO No.817 of 2011 -3- be a cause for interference in appeal. 5. The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 25, 2011 Pankaj*