IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3217 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:15.12.2010 Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla and others ....Appellants versus Gurjit Kaur Taneja and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. ---- 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. The appeal is by the State Transport Corporation challenging the issue of negligence and quantum. The deceased was a harmonium player in gurudwara and the claimants were the widow and two minor children. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal found that the evidence of PW2-Harjinder Singh and PW3-Gurtej Singh revealed that the deceased was going to Abohar side and the State Transport Corporation bus came from the opposite side and the accident had arisen only when the driver of the bus lost control and hit against the car. This evidence, in my view, is sufficient to hold the driver of the bus as responsible for the accident and for making the State Transport FAO No.3217 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - Corporation liable for the consequences of the accident, particularly when even the driver of the bus was not examined. 2. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs.4,000/-, the contribution to the family at Rs.3,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 10. Although the learned counsel would state that in the year 1992, the income for a harmonium player could not have been Rs.4,000/-, I do not propose to go into the issue of adequacy of evidence relating to the income since even if the amount were to be reduced, the claimants shall be entitled to apply for a larger value of multiplier in conformity with the scale of compensation suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another-2009 ACJ 1298. The appropriate multiplier for his age would have been 14 and not 10. On an overall consideration, I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,75,000/- was just and it calls for no interference in appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.12.2010 sanjeev