IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.165 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:01.02.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ....Appellant versus Prito Devi and others. ....Respondents II. FAO No.166 of 1989 (O&M) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ....Appellant versus Harnek Singh and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both the appeals arise out the same accident due to a collision between a bicycle and the appellant's bus. The cyclist and the pillion rider suffered grievous injuries. The cyclist was Harnek Singh and the person sitting on the carrier was Ved Parkash. Ved Parkash died and the cyclist survived with injuries. I am not prepared to reappraise the issue of negligence in a case where the cyclist had come to harm and I would place a need for greater circumspection and care on the driver of a FAO No.165 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - motor vehicle. The finding of negligence of the driver of the appellant is maintained and even as regards the compensation awarded, I find no reason for interference. For injuries suffered, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- and awarded Rs.2,10,000/- for the representatives of the deceased. In the manner of determining the quantum, the Tribunal has considered the fact that the deceased-Ved Parkash was said to be employed as munshi with the contractor and the evidence was that he was earning Rs.1,500/-. The claimants were the widow and four children and compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- was very modest. 2. As regards the claim at the instance of Harnek Singh, he suffered head injuries and his family members had also joined along with the injured to say that he become mentally deranged and was not able to take care of himself. In such a serious situation, the award had been only for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is only unfortunate that there are no representations on behalf of the claimants. 3. There is no reason for modifying the award for reduction in the manner sought for by the appellant. Both the appeals are of the year 1989 and I have examined the records and proceed to dispose of the cases on merits, having regard to the fact that the cases are more than two decades old, there is no justification for keeping them on file for any longer. 4. Both the appeals are dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.02.2011 sanjeev