FAO Nos. 163 of 1997 1 FAO Nos. 164 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO Nos. 163 of 1997(O&M) Date of decision February 21 , 2011 Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another ....... Appellants Versus Gurdeep Kaur ........Respondents FAO No.164 of 1997 Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another ....... Appellants Versus Gurdeep Kaur and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. C. L. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeals are taken up for hearing with the consent of both the parties. State Transport Corporation is on appeal FAO Nos. 163 of 1997 2 FAO Nos. 164 of 1997 challenging the issue of negligence and quantum in a case where the person who was driving the scooter and child who was accompanying the father in the scooter died as a result of the accident. The accident was spoken by PW-2 and PW-4 attributing negligence to the driver of the bus. A criminal case had also been registered against him. The driver himself had given evidence to the effect that the accident took place when the scooterist was attempting to overtake yet another vehicle and negligence ought to be attributed to the driver of the scooter himself. The Tribunal recorded that the driver had not examined any one else to say about the due care which the bus driver had taken and there was no negligence on his part. I will not take the issue of negligence only on the basis that a passenger in the bus had not been examined but still I will not make any intervention on a finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of two eye witnesses who spoke about the accident and who had also given evidence relating to the negligence of the driver. The issue of negligence ought not be a major issue for a reappraisal at an Appellate forum since a strict liability norm that has come through Section 163-A has given a new dimension to judicial approaches for claims arising out of motor accident resulting in death or permanent disability. I will therefore uphold the finding of the Tribunal as sufficient to entitle the claimants to make claim for compensation. 2. Even as regards the quantum the award of `75,000/- for death of 2 ½ years old child cannot be taken to be excessive in the light of several decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court relating to assessment of compensation for death or injury to the minor child and particularly in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Priya Vs. Kalgutakar 2009 15 SCC 54 that has dealt with the issue of compensation for an injury to a minor but it has dealt with cases of assessment of FAO Nos. 163 of 1997 3 FAO Nos. 164 of 1997 compensation for fatal accident as well. I will therefore not find any scope for intervention for quantum of compensation for death of the child. 3. As regards the compensation for death of the scooterist who was aged 34 years, learned counsel points out that the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 17 when the appropriate multiplier in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court must have been only 16. This again, I will not think as very relevant, considering the fact that the deceased was a driver in government service in Irrigation department and while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal did not factor issue of prospects of increase in salary. If that were to be taken note of, even if, lower multiplier were to be applied, the compensation could not have been less than what was determined by the Tribunal. I, therefore affirm both the awards and dismiss the appeals filed by the Transport Corporation. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 21, 2011 archana