FAO No. 13 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 13 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.1.2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .. Appellants v. Palo Devi and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby on account of the death of Krishan Ram, respondents No. 1 to 6 have been awarded compensation of Rs. 4,74,000/-. Facts of the case, as have been noticed by the learned Tribunal, are that the deceased in the present case was driving motor cycle bearing No. PB- 42B-5340 on the left side of the road at a normal speed. Sona Ram and Paramjit Singh were pillion riders of the motor cycle. At about 11.00 A.M., when they reached near Ganesh Filling Station, Ghagga, bus bearing registration No. PB- 11N-9531, being driven by Balwinder Singh in rash and negligent manner struck against the motor cycle, as a result of which the occupants were seriously injured and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation payable to the family of deceased- Krishan Ram at Rs. 4,74,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has gone wrong in assessing the amount of compensation payable to the family of the deceased ignoring the fact that it was a case of contributory negligence because on one motor cycle, three passengers were there. As they lost balance, the motor cycle struck against the bus, as a result of which they expired. He further submitted that the Tribunal has further committed illegality in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, there being no evidence on FAO No. 13 of 2010 [ 2] record to suggest that. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Merely because three passengers were travelling on a motor cycle, it cannot be presumed that the driver lost the balance and struck against the bus to make out a case of contributory negligence without there being any other independent evidence on record to corroborate the plea raised. As far as assessment of the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal has merely assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month while finding that he was working as kabaria (junk dealer). The assessment of such income even in the absence of proof cannot be said to be on higher side, considering the minimum wages now a days. Accordingly, even on that aspect, the award of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.1.2010 mk