FAO No.3011 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3011 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 19.04.2011 Vishvamitar Sethi son of Shree Chand Sethi, resident of House No.170, Prem Nagar, Karnal (regd owner of three wheeler bearing registration No.HR-45-A-2823) ......Appellant Versus Pataso wife of late Shri Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Bhartu Ram and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the appellant. 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 ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the owner against liability and quantum on the ground that the claimant stated in the course of evidence that her husband was earning more than Rs.6,000/- and that his contribution to the family would be not less than Rs.4,000/-. The objection was that in an application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the claimant were to state that the deceased was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act itself could not have been entertained. 2. The Tribunal dealt with this issue specifically by pointing out that even in the averment in the petition, it was only stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3300/- per month as a labourer and even in FAO No.3011 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has stated that her husband was earning only Rs.3,000/- per month. In the cross-examination, she was exuberant to state that her husband was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Court was not acceding to the contention, rejected the same and took the income at Rs.3,000/- only. In a case where the Tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-, application of the scale of compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be fault with. A statement by the claimant in the cross- examination giving an exaggerated version of what his husband was earning, cannot disentitle the claimant from applying for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act especially when the Tribunal found that the income was only Rs.3,000/- per month. The compensation determined by the Tribunal conforms to the scales as prescribed under Schedule II and therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the same. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is a poor person and he may not be in a position to pay the amount as awarded. I cannot make any exception for person, who is poor especially when the person, who has died, was poorer than the appellant himself and has left the family hapless. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 19, 2011 Pankaj*