IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1949 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:23.02.2011 Nutan Rani and others ....Appellants versus Driver Ajit Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate, with Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel, for Chandigarh Administration-respondents 3 and 4. ---- 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 ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a person, aged 30 years, who died in a motor accident, involving the respondents' bus. The accident was said to have taken place when the deceased was getting down from the bus and even before he had fully alighted, the driver had started without minding the safety of the passengers resulting in his falling down and receiving fatal injuries. This evidence was also supported by PW2, who spoke to the fact that the FAO No.1949 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - accident had taken place only on account of the negligent act of the driver in starting the bus before the deceased had fully gotten down. The driver of the vehicle, however, had a different version to give. He stated that the bus reached near the bus stop at Aroma, conductor had given a whistle for stopping the bus and when he was slowing down the bus, the deceased, who was standing near the front door, jumped out and fell down flat on his face towards the back side of the bus. The suggestion in the cross-examination was that two or three persons had already alighted from the bus and only when the deceased was trying to alight from the bus, the driver had started and, therefore, the accident had taken place. The conductor of the bus would have been the best person to speak about the fact whether the accident had taken place before the bus had come to stop or had taken place subsequently when the bus had started before all the passengers had alighted. I would hold in favour of the claimant for the only reason that the version of the claimant was supported through the evidence of PW2, whose version, however, was discarded on account of the only fact that he had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital. I will not take this to be an important feature to discredit his version, especially when the safety of passengers in a public transport corporation ought to be the primordial concern for an establishment. It behoves of the transport authorities to place the best evidence in a case where an accident takes place resulting in some injuries to a passenger in a bus. I will draw an adverse inference for the non-examination of the conductor of the bus and hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation not merely on no fault basis as determined by the Tribunal, but a just FAO No.1949 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - compensation that would require to be worked on the basis of known parameters. 2. I tabulate the compensation as payable as follows:- Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1. Income 3,000 3,000 2. Deduction 1/3 1/3 3. Multiplicand 2000x12 2000x12 4. Multiplier 16 16 5. Loss of dependence 3,84,000 3,84,000 6. Loss of consortium 10,000 7. Loss to estate 2,500 8. Funeral expenses 2,000 ______ _______ Total 50,000 3,98,500 3. The amount in excess over what has been determined already by the Tribunal shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The compensation shall be distributed equally amongst all the claimants. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.02.2011 sanjeev