F.A.O.No. 171 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 171 of 1990 Date of Decision : 12.9.2008 Mohinder Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus Kewal Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R.K.Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. ... MAHESH GROVER.J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar dated 24.10.1989. The daughter of the appellants, namely Satya Devi, who was a student of B.Ed. in Govt. College of Education, Jalandhar lost her life on 1.12.1988 at 9.00 a.m. when she was alighting from the bus and the driver of the bus put it into motion The Tribunal accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on the principle of no fault liability and disbelieved the accident by saying that no bus passenger was produced, no FIR and DDR recorded, post-mortem conducted and drew an inference that the accident had not taken place at all. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. F.A.O.No. 171 of 1990 -2- The respondents have filed their written statement and in para 24 of the same they have submitted as under :- “24. That para No.24 as stated is denied being wrong. The true facts are that on 1.12.88 the bus No.PUG-1761 started its journey from the Bus Stand, Jalandhar at 8.30 a.m. And was bound from Jalandhar to Mustapur. The bus was being driver at a very normal speed and was within the control of its driver. The bus when reached near Ladowali Chowk, was stopped for alighting some passengers. As soon as the passengers alighted from the bus, the conductor of the bus gave whistle and the driver moved the bus ahead. Unfortunately the deceased while alighting from the bus slipped and fell down on the metalled road and sustained injuries. The driver of the bus was not rash or negligent in driving the bus. Thus the accident did not took place due to any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.” It is clear therefore that the version of the accident which has been given by the appellant was also admitted by the respondents themselves. In this view of the matter, the only evidence that was required to be seen for recording a satisfaction regarding the negligence of the respondents was that before the deceased has alighted the bus started. Even this fact is admitted. The driver of a vehicle, especially a public passenger vehicle have to be extremely careful when the passengers are alighting or boarding the bus. In their haste to get the vehicle in motion heavy price can be paid by the F.A.O.No. 171 of 1990 -3- persons who got entangled in the process. The deceased was also a victim of such a haste shown by the driver of the offending bus. Even if the stand taken up in their written statement is accepted, then also the driver started the bus after the conductor had blown the whistle. The conductor being a member of the crew is responsible for the operations of the bus. It was his bounden duty also to ensure that the passengers had alighted before he could signal the driver to put the bus in motion. Accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal on this issue is overturned and it is held that respondent No.1 was guilty of having caused the accident. Now the next question that is to be determined is as to what is the quantum of compensation that the appellants were entitled to. The deceased was a student of B.Ed. and aged 21 years. The Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another 2005 ACJ 99 where a child of 13 years died assessed the compensation by taking notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001 ACJ 1735 the apex court held that in the case such as this where the minors are involved the notional income assessed should be at least Rs.3,000/- per month. Reconciling the same it would be safe to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. The deceased being 21 years of age was entitled to at least a multiplier of 10 as she would have got married subsequently. Accordingly, the compensation works out to Rs.2,500 x 12 x 10 = F.A.O.No. 171 of 1990 -4- Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus the appellants shall be entitled to this compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. In the claim petition, the claimants/appellants have claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Satya Devi, but in view of the observations made by the apex court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2002-3) P.L.R. 9 there is no bar to the Tribunal/Court to award compensation in excess of what is claimed and the function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. The liability to satisfy the award is fastened upon the respondents. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal stands disposed of. 12.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss