FAO No.1416 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1416 of 2010 Date of Decision. 10.01.2011 Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C) Patiala through its Managing Director ......Appellant Versus Jaswant Kaur and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the Transport Corporation challenging the issue of involvement of the vehicle and the quantum. 2. Before the Tribunal, the evidence had been tendered at the instance of PW1, who was crossing the road along with the deceased. At that time the accident had taken place and the Corporation bus was involved in the accident. PW-2 was a retired DPO, who deposed that he was travelling in the bus from Bathinda to Sangrur to see his relative and before the accident had taken place he and other passengers urged the driver to drive the bus slowly but he continued to drive the bus at a high speed and when the accident had taken place, the witness had asked the driver to stop the bus but he did not do so. He had also FAO No.1416 of 2010 -2- given evidence to the effect that his statement was recorded by the police and a FIR had been registered about two hours after the accident. The driver, however, denied that any such accident had taken place and at the trial, he relied on report alleged to have been carried out by SP Ajay Malooja and yet another person Sh. Sukhpal Singh. The Tribunal chose to reject these reports as unworthy since the persons, who had conducted the enquiry were themselves not examined. A report that is non-statutory in character could have no value unless the person who drew up the report was before the Court and the claimant had full opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report. The fact of involvement of the vehicle and the accident is a factual issue which a Tribunal will decide on the basis of evidence adduced before it and the Court's duty cannot be abdicated to be left a police officer to decide whether there was an accident or whether there involved a case of negligence of the driver or not. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in preferring the evidence of two persons who spoke from the personal knowledge that the Corporation vehicle was involved in the accident. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding. 3. Learned counsel points out that even as regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had taken liberally the monthly income to be Rs.6,000/- when the income tax return for the assessment year 1993-94 and 1996-97 showed that he had an income of less than Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal found that he was a mechanic in electronic goods and he was running his own business and therefore, took the income to be Rs.6,000/-. I cannot take the assumption to be wrong or FAO No.1416 of 2010 -3- off the mark and the Tribunal was justified in providing for a reasonable inrease in income for a person, who was technically qualified and who was running his own business. The estimation of Rs.6,000/- per month as the possible income, which he would have earned cannot be seen to be high. The overall compensation determined on such basis and determining a compensation of Rs.6,33,500/- is in my view just and there is no scope for interference. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 10, 2011 Pankaj*