FAO No.3921 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3921 of 2008 Date of decision: December 11, 2008. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant(s) v. Sukhjit Kumar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This appeal is filed at the instance of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar whereby a compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- has been awarded to the respondent-claimants on account of the death of Ramesh Lal in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.8.2004. The record of the Tribunal has been summoned and perused. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also been heard at some length. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, it is urged that the accident was cuased due to negligent driving of FAO No.3921 of 2008 -: 2 :- the scooter by the deceased who hit the bus from the rear side. The second contention is that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. In order to appreciate both the contentions, the facts may be briefly noticed. On 30.8.2004 at about 9 a.m., Ramesh Lal was going on his scooter bearing registratin No.PB-08-J-9036 from village Hameedi to village Innowal. Parshotam Lal was the pillion rider. When they reached at the chowk in the area of village Hamira, a PRTC bus driven by respondent No.6 (Kashmir Singh) came from behind and overtook the scooter of Ramesh Lal. The bus was being driven allegedly at a very high speed and as soon as it overtook the scooter, the bus-driver lost control over the bus and suddenly applied brakes without giving any signal/indicator or slowing down the speed. Resultantly, Ramesh Lal got no time to slow down his scooter which struck against the rear portion of the bus. Ramesh Lal died on the spot whereas Parshotam Lal suffered serious injuries and was rushed to the hospital. The accident was witnessed by Ravi Kumar who was riding a separate scooter and was following Ramesh Lal. Ravi Kumar has entered the witness box and deposed regarding the manner in which the accident took place. His statement inspires confidence. The fact that he witnessed the accident is duly noticed in the very first available version, namely, the FIR. He cannot be, therefore, a planted witness. The finding returned by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 that Ramesh Lal died in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus- driver, thus, is founded upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record and warrants no interference by this Court. FAO No.3921 of 2008 -: 3 :- This takes us to the second contention, namely, the alleged assessment of excessive compensation by the Tribunal. The evidence on record reveals that the deceased was 27 years old and used to work as a wire-winder of lintel etc. According to the claimants, the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has taken him to be a daily wager and has assessed his income at Rs.150/- per day, i.e., Rs.4500/- per month. The Tribunal has thereafter deducted 1/3rd thereof which the deceased might be spending on himself and has assessed the dependency @ Rs.3,000/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal has granted the total compensation of Rs.6,48,000/-, besides Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses and consortium etc. The claimants are an unfortunate child who was aged about 9 months only at the time when he lost his father and the parents of the deceased. The father of the deceased (Jogender Lal) also unfortunately expired during the pendency of the claim petition. It may be mentioned that the wife of the deceased, soon after the death of Ramesh Lal, left her 9 month's old child and is stated to have re-married. A finding to this effect has been returned by the Tribunal also. It would, thus, be seen that only two claimants, namely, the mother of the deceased and his minor child, who was 3-4 years old when the Tribunal decided the claim petition, are left behind. Both of them were fully dependent upon the deceased. Having regard to the future of child, whose sustenance, care and protection rest in the hands of his old grand-mother only, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed to be excessive or on the higher side. FAO No.3921 of 2008 -: 4 :- There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant be remitted to the Tribunal for its own disbursement to the respondent- claimants. December 11, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge