IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.111 of 2011. Date of decision: 23.5.2011 H.R.T.C. and Another … …Appellants Versus Amar Singh & Another … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellants: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State Transport Authority is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, awarding a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- alongwith 9% interest per annum to the claimant for the death of his father Shri Shiv Ram who died in an accident which was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. 2. The case of the claimant was that Bus No.HP- 67-7516 was being driven at the relevant point of time by the driver Shek Mohd. On 24.9.2009 when deceased was boarding the bus, it was started without there being any signal from the conductor to do so as a result the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes 2 deceased fell down and suffered multiple injuries. He was shifted to the FRU Hospital, Nalagarh wherefrom he was rushed to PGI, Chandigarh, but succumbed to his injuries. The pleading is that he was 55 years of age and was earning 7,000/- rupees per month by working as a mason. 3. On the settled issues, the learned Tribunal attributed the negligence to the driver and worked out the datum figure to be Rs.3,000/-. A multiplier of 11 was applied and an award of Rs.3,96,000/- was made 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the rash and negligent act was not proved on the record of the case. 5. Adverting to this issue, the learned Tribunal holds that PW-3 MC Jagat Ram had proved the FIR lodged against the driver under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC. The defence set up by the respondent-driver, who stated that the deceased has sustained injuries when he jumped from the bus, was not accepted on the ground that the oral testimony as also the FIR Ex.PW-3/A was a clear pointer to the fact that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver. I am not persuaded to take a different view. 6. The second point urged is on the question of the earning capacity of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the income has not been proved on the record and that the multiplier has been applied on 3 the higher side. Even accepting these arguments, what I find is that in Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010)9 SCC 218, the Supreme Court holds that even a house wife’s dependency is now to be calculated as 5,000/- rupees per month. In these circumstances, even if the multiplier is to be reduced the income requires to be increased which more or less balances the interest of the parties. There is thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. May 23, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.