IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4403 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:03.05.2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Ludhiana Depot, Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Pal Singh alias Surender Singh and others. ....Respondents II. FAO No.4404 of 2010 (O&M) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Ludhiana Depot, Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Kapoor Kaur and others ....Respondents III. FAO No.4405 of 2010 (O&M) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Ludhiana Depot, Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Mandeep Singh Sodhi and others ....Respondents IV. FAO No.4406 of 2010 (O&M) Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Ludhiana Depot, Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Pal Singh alias Surender Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- FAO No.4403 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - Present: Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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. In FAO No.4403 of 2010, the appeal is against the liability cast to the extent of 50% on the appellant being the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-11-AB/7315. The accident was admittedly a case of collision between a Canter truck and a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. The claimant had filed a case contending that the accident had taken place by the negligent driving of the driver of the bus that belonged to the Corporation and the driver of the Canter truck. The Corporation entered a defence denying the accident and denying the involvement of the vehicle. They took to a specific plea that the rapat No.6 made a reference to some other vehicle number and the case had been wrongly filed against the Corporation. 2. At the trial, it was brought out through evidence that there had been some compromise between the claimants and the owner of the Canter truck, who admitted that he was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal made reference about the same but still held that the Transport Corporation as well as the owner of the Canter to be liable for satisfying the award. It appears that the evidence was tendered before the Tribunal that showed clearly through photographs that the Corporation bus bearing registration No. PB-11-AB/7315 was in fact involved in the FAO No.4403 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - accident. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal made a reference to the fact of compromise of the claimant with the driver of the Canter when the driver had admitted himself to be responsible for the accident and hence, the Tribunal could not have apportioned equal liability for satisfy the claims. 3. I find this argument to be fallacious, for, if the defence had been that the driver of the Corporation bus was not in any way responsible for the accident and that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck, then the argument put forward now could have been countenanced. On the other hand, if the contention was that the vehicle itself was not involved in the accident and it transpired in evidence that the bus belonging to the Corporation was in fact involved, it will not avail to the Corporation to contend for the first time in appeal here that the entire responsibility must have been only on the driver/owner of the Canter. The argument which is now sought to be made conflicts with the version taken by the Corporation by way of defence in its written statement. The finding of equal liability by the Tribunal in such circumstances was justified and I will not take an alleged compromise by the claimants with the driver of the Canter as in any way barring the owner of Canter to plead that the driver of the Corporation bus had also been responsible for causing motor accident. 4. The liability cast on the appellant was, therefore, justified to the extent of 50% and I affirm the same. The appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of the finding relating to the liability, the appeal in FAO No.4406 of 2010 would also require to be dismissed, for, the said FAO No.4403 of 2010 (O&M) - 4 - case also raises the issue of the extent of liability of the Corporation for the claim arising out of the motor accident. 6. In FAO No.4404 of 2010, the Corporation is aggrieved against the quantum of compensation determined for death of a person, aged 42 years. The claimants were parents, aged 60 and 65 years. Even in the absence of any proof regarding the income, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and made a deduction of 1/3rd to hold the contribution to the family must have been Rs.2,000/-. It made a further deduction of Rs.1,000/- since the wife and children of the deceased had also died in the same accident and, therefore, the Tribunal took the contribution could not have been more than Rs.1,000/-. The learned counsel argues that in the absence of evidence of income, the notional income as provided under Schedule-II to Section 163-A could have been taken only as Rs.15,000/- per annum and not @Rs.3,000/- per month as was done by the Tribunal. This argument which could be seen to be reasonable will not still have any bearing on the ultimate quantum of compensation that was arrived at by the Tribunal. If Section 163-A is invoked and it was on the basis that death resulted by the use of a motor vehicle and the income of the deceased was less than Rs.40,000/-, then there is very little innovation that could be adopted by a Tribunal. It has to follow to a T the formulation under the Act itself. The Tribunal was not expected to make a deduction of 1/3rd and then make a further deduction of 50% of that amount. If at all the contention of the learned counsel were to be accepted that the notional income could have been taken only at Rs.15,000/-, 1/3rd FAO No.4403 of 2010 (O&M) - 5 - deduction as what Schedule-II prescribes would leave a contribution at Rs.10,000/- and that was close to the amount which the Tribunal did. The choice of multiplier again in such cases would be dependent on the age of the deceased only, although we have come by decisions where it has been held that if the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are parents, the choice of multiplier should be made dependent on the age of the parents. In fact, the mistake in adopting a multiplier to be dependent on the age of the deceased at all times was found to be erroneous by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC Versus Trilok Chandra-1996(2) ACJ 831 but even the said decision did no more than make an exhortation to the legislature to bring appropriate corrections. So long as Schedule-II stands as it does, there is no scope for tinkering with the same, if the Tribunal were to assess the compensation on a petition filed under Section 163-A. The overall compensation determined by taking the extent of monthly dependency at Rs.1,000/- and adopting a multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased was, therefore, in conformity with law and would require no change. Consequently, the award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 7. The appeal in FAO No.4405 of 2010 is again on the issue of quantum where the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 15 for death of a woman, aged 38 years and the claimants were parents-in-law. The learned counsel refers to a judgment in Rajinder Pal Sharma Versus Jaswant Singh-1999(1) RCR (Civil) 642, to contend that the parents-in- law cannot be treated as dependents on a daughter-in-law. I will secure no benefit from this judgment with due respect and I have taken a view FAO No.4403 of 2010 (O&M) - 6 - in the decision in 'United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Parlad Rai and others' in FAO No.1716 of 1999, decided on 06.08.2010, that in Indian social conditions, a daughter-in-law's position for contribution to the family of her husband is enormous and parents- in-law can truly treat themselves as deprived by the death of the daughter-in-law. The concept of 'dependent' in Section 168 does not need to necessarily follow the mandate of what is prescribed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Dependency is more an issue of fact and there have been instances where even without reference to the explicit legal provisions. Courts have awarded compensation for death of nun or priest to the Congregation to which nun or priest was attached to. The essence of law that has come through the pronouncements of various Courts is to determine at the trial whether the claimant has made out as a matter of fact a case of dependency. It is only incidental that a person that claims to be 'dependent' is himself heir or could be termed to be dependent under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier less than the value suggested through Schedule-II under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no scope for interference in appeal. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.05.2011 sanjeev