F.A.O. No.652 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.652 of 1990 Date of Decision. 13.01.2011 P.R.T.C. Patiala through its Managing Director .....Appellant Versus Sarabjit Kaur widow of Charanjit Singh son of Sher Singh resident of VPO Bhere Munna, Tehsil and District, Ludhiana and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 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. The appeal is against the compensation awarded at Rs.3,20,000/- for death of Charanjit Singh, who was aged 31 years in a motor accident. The accident had taken place when he was travelling in a scooter and the bus belonging to the PRTC dashed against him and the bus stopped by hitting against a eucalyptus tree. The Tribunal found that the bus driver was negligent and while determining the quantum, took the income of the deceased as stated by the claimant at Rs.1200/- per month from agricultural land and Rs.1,000/- towards dairy farming. The Tribunal took the dependence at Rs.20,000/- per annum and adopted a multiplier of 16 to determine the compensation. This amount is said to be excessive and it is urged by the learned F.A.O. No.652 of 1990 -2- counsel appearing for the PRTC that the accident had taken place when the scooterist was attempting to overtake a tempo and the scooterist alone must have been taken to be responsible for the accident. It is urged that in any event contributory negligence ought to be placed on the scooterist to abate a portion of the claim to the extent to which he was responsible for the accident. 2. As regards the issue of negligence, I cannot place any contributory negligence for the simple reason that the bus had not stopped immediately even on an impact of collision with the scooter but it proceeded on till it dashed against a eucalyptus tree and stopped. Learned counsel for the appellant explains it by saying that the scooterist had come towards the right side of the road and in a bid to avoid collision, he had swerved to the left and dashed against a tree. The fact that the vehicle even ran out of the road and dashed against a tree is itself indicative of the rashness of the driver of the bus and if there had been any safe driving, it would not have happened that the vehicle had to go out of the road upto a place where tree had remained planted. I will not, therefore, interfere with the finding of negligence attributed to the driver of the bus by the Tribunal and uphold the said finding. 3. As regards the quantum of compensation, learned counsel would contend that the income taken by the Tribunal was grossly high and the contribution could not have been taken as Rs.20,000/-. For a case relating to death of a person that had taken place in an accident in the year 1988, to seek for a reappraisal nearly 23 year later, it would be harsh to even think that Rs.20,000/- as contribution to the family for a F.A.O. No.652 of 1990 -3- whole year as excessive. The absurdity of the contention could be perceived in another fashion by projecting a case which is filed in the year 2011 to be taken up for hearing in 2031 and to say that the compensation arrived at in 2011 is grossly high. I am extending this logic only to express my total abhorrence to the system of administration of justice that takes 23 years to decide whether a compensation assessed for death is appropriate or not. Rs.20,000/- as contribution to the family annually could hardly be perceived to be high and a compensation determined on such basis, I will not find any reason to interfere. 4. The award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 13, 2011 Pankaj*