FAO No.1190 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1190 of 1987 DATE OF DECISION: January 12, 2011 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT ...APPELLANT CORPORATION VERSUS LAL CHAND AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 2. FAO No.1041 of 1987 LAL CHAND AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SHYAM LAL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. FAO No. No.1190 of 1987 is filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the finding of negligence found against the driver, while FAO No.1041 of 198 is an appeal against the award seeking for enhancement of compensation. There is no representation for either side, but I do not want to hold the case for an adjournment only for the absence of party. I am not also inclined to dismiss the case for non- prosecution, I proceed, therefore, to examine the case on merits with FAO No.1190 of 1987 -2- reference to the records. 2. As regards the issue of negligence, the Tribunal took note of the evidence of Conductor of Haryana Roadways who deposed that the bus was going from Rewari to Mahendergarh and when the bus was near village Jhook Majra, he and the driver saw two scooterists coming from behind the bus and the bus of Rajasthan State Roadways came from Mahendergarh side and after the bus passed their side, they heard a sound and the driver of the bus stopped and he found that an accident had resulted with Rajasthan Roadways bus. PW3 Dharampal was cultivator of Majra Khurd and who was the eye witness also stated that the Haryana Roadways had gone past and the bus belonging to Rajasthan Roadways struck against the scooter which was on the left side of the road. The bus belonging to Rajasthan Roadways turned turtle and fell into the pit. There was ample evidence for the Tribunal to find that it was the bus of Rajasthan Roadways which was responsible for the accident and therefore, I see no reason to take a different view. 3. The appeal filed by Rajasthan Roadways in FAO No.1190 of 1987 is, therefore, dismissed. 4. As regards FAO No.1051 of 1987 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the deceased was 29 years of age and the claimants were parents who were 55 and 50 respectively, wife Mukesh was 26 years of age and she had two children, aged 5 and 3 respectively. The deceased was in Government service earning `1586/- and a certificate of income had been filed as Ex.P6. The Tribunal took the contribution to the family at `700/- and determined the compensation at `1,52,000/-. I would provide for a 50% increase for the prospect of increase in salary and take the FAO No.1190 of 1987 -3- average income at `2250/- and make a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at `1687.50. I would adopt a multiplier of 17 and take the loss of dependency at `3,44,250/-. I would added `5000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and `2500/- each to the minor children. I would also provide for an additional sum of `5000/- towards of loss to estate and `2500/- towards funeral expenses and the total compensation payable would be `3,61,750/-. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The additional compensation shall be awarded only to widow and the children. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 12, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE