IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 138 of 2011 Date of Decision 17th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ HRTC and another ….Appellants. Versus Sheela Devi and others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi awarding compensation in the sum of ` 4,38,000/- alongwith interest to the claimants. 2. The first respondent is the widow, second is the mother and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the minor children of deceased Chet Ram. The case pleaded before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is that on 16.4.2008, deceased Chet Ram was 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 coming to Panarsa from Pandoh in a jeep No. HP-31-4323. At about 9.30 PM, when he reached near Thalot, HRTC bus No. HP- 03-B-6036 being driven by respondent No. 1 dashed into the jeep causing head injury to the deceased. He was rushed to the Government hospital, but it was too late since he was already dead. It was proved on record that he was working as driver with one Suresh Thakur, son of Sh. Gahroo Ram, resident of 209/3, Palace Colony, Mandi and was getting ` 4000/- per month as salary. In addition, he was doing agriculture work from which he was earning ` 50/- per month. The claimants prayed for compensation to the extent of ` 18 lacs. 3. On the settled issues, the first issue on which there is serious contest between the parties before the learned Tribunal as also before this Court was whether on the fateful day, the accident was caused by the rash or negligent act of the driver of the appellant Corporation. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 4, out of them PW1 Sheela Devi, widow of the deceased, states that her husband had never driven a vehicle in rash or negligent manner. She also states that he never consumed alcohol, contrary to what has been suggested to her in the cross examination by the appellant herein. She though admits that accident did not take place in her presence. She has produced on record the First Information Report Ext.PB. 4. The crucial evidence on this point is that of PW4 Leelamani who states that he is an agriculturist and on the fateful day, he was in the house of his friend Bihari Lal, which is adjoining to the National Highway. After taking their meal, they 3 were sitting outside the house and at about 10.45 PM, a HRTC bus came from Kullu side at a very fast speed and hit the jeep which was coming from the Mandi side. It is in his examination in chief that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner and jeep was driven at a slow speed. The jeep driver was badly injured. He and his friend immediately rushed to the spot and took the deceased to the hospital. He also says that passengers of the HRTC bus were abusing the bus driver. In cross examination, he says that it was dark at the time when the accident occurred and 10-15 people gathered at the spot whose names he does not know. Though in cross examination he says that there was no quarrel which took place on the spot. This is his evidence. 5. Based on his statement, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that in the dark, it was not possible to ascertain as to how and under what circumstances a witness can say that a particular vehicle was driven in rash or negligent manner. Learned counsel submits that mere fact that accident had taken place is not solely attributable to the rashness or negligence of the bus driver. He argues with vehemence that the sole testimony of this witness is insufficient for levying liability on the Transport Corporation and that the evidence has to be scrutinised carefully. 6. I have gone through the judgment of the Court below and also gone through the evidence on record. 7. On the first aspect, all I need say is that in the darkness the Highway, except in the municipal limits of towns, is not lighted. However, what must be noted is that the headlights 4 of the vehicle are visible to all and that too from a distance and it is from this fact itself that it can be seen as to whether a vehicle is being driven in a proper manner or not. On the other aspect, I find from the evidence of PW4 Leelamani that even the passengers of the bus were blaming the driver, though in cross examination he says that they were not quarrelling with him. Levelling blame and quarrelling with the driver are two different aspects. On the last aspect, what I need consider is that at the time of night at which the accident took place, it may not be possible to find any independent witness to support the case. I do not find any error in the findings of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This appeal therefore requires to be rejected. 8. On the question of multiplier learned counsel submits that the multiplier as applied by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. I cannot accept this submission as in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 6 SCC 121 the question is settled and I do not find any deviation in this case; the claimants would be entitled to the multiplier of 18. On the aspect of the interest, I find that 9% interest can be awarded on the compensation from the date of petition. This appeal is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. May 17th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 5 6