IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.935 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Appellant Versus Jaswant Kaur and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant ….. Jasbir Singh, J. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has filed this appeal against award dated 26.11.2007, awarding an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- in favour of respondent Nos.1- 4 on account of death of Kaka Singh, on 12.8.2007, in a motor accident. Heard counsel for the appellant. It is apparent from the records that respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act), to claim compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs along with interest on account of death of Kaka Singh in the above said motor accident. On 12.8.2007 Kaka Singh along with others, was traveling in a tractor- trolley, which was hit by a bus bearing No.PB-11-M-8492 owned by the appellant. In that accident Kaka Singh and Kirpal Kaur died and others received FAO No.935 of 2010(O&M) injuries. For the above said accident, FIR bearing No.229 under Sections 279/337/427/304-A IPC was recorded against respondent No.5. Before the trial Court, by filing a written statement, the appellant admitted the factum of accident, however, it was stated therein that the same was caused due to rash and negligent driving at the hands of the driver of the tractor-trolley. On pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Kaka Singh deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 driver of the offending bus No.PB-11-M-8492 owned by respondent No.2 as alleged on 12.8.2007? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation being legal representative of the deceased Kaka Singh as alleged. If so its quantum and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the claim petition is not filed within the rules of Motor Vehicle as alleged? OPR 1 and 2. 4. Whether the claim petition is for non-joinder of the necessary parties and is false and frivolous as alleged in para No.2 and 3 in preliminary objections? OPR/1 & 2.” Respondent Nos.1 to 4/ the claimants produced three witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. To rebut their case, respondent No.5 appeared in the witness box. However, no other corroborative evidence was led to show that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving at the hands of the driver of tractor-trolley. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, came to a conclusion that respondent No.5 was negligent in causing the accident, in question and passed the award granting compensation, as mentioned earlier. Counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon this Court that it was a case of contributory negligence. By traveling in a tractor- 2 FAO No.935 of 2010(O&M) trolley, the deceased has put himself to a danger and on that account, he be also proportionately held contributed to the cause of accident. This Court feels that argument raised is liable to be rejected. Simply by traveling in a tractor-trolley, it cannot be imagined that one will put himself to a danger. It has been proved on record that the tractor was going at a normal speed. The bus driver – respondent No.5 was driving the bus in a very rash and negligent manner, which resulted into the accident, in which death of Kaka Singh has occurred. The trial Court has rightly held that during investigation also, when FIR was recorded against respondent No.5, version given by the claimants was found to be correct. By filing a private complaint, respondent No.5 has not disputed version given by the claimants regarding causing of accident by him. So far as quantum of compensation amount is concerned, it is also very reasonable. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were dependent upon the deceased. By taking note of the same, cut to the extent of 1/4th was imposed and income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.3000/- per month, which this Court feels that is rather on the lower side in this period of high inflation. Age of the deceased was between 35 and 40 years. The trial Court has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 to assess the compensation amount. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any ground, on the basis of which, interference can be made in the award under challenge. Dismissed. 02.03.2010 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3