IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 970 of 1987 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Himachal Pardesh Roadways, Simla Dept.,Simla. ....... Appellant through Shri Deepak Suri,Advocate. Versus Shrimati Sheel Khosla and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 8 and 10 through Nemo. Respondent no.9 through Shri R.M.Suri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against award dated 30.4.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.12 of 13.1.1987. The appellant herein is the owner of the bus which was involved in a collision with a truck resulting in the death of Om Parkash Khosla. In a claim petition preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of contributory negligence of the drivers of the both the F.A.O.No.970 of 1987 -2- .... vehicles to the extent of 50% each. On the basis of this finding, the owner/ driver of the bus and the truck were held liable to satisfy the award in the same ratio. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence, as also on the quantum of compensation are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above mentioned contention. A perusal of the record shows that the bus had just started from Bus Stand, Panchkula when the collision with the truck had occurred. There is evidence to suggest that both the vehicles were at slow speed and were visible to each other, and the drivers could have avoided the collision. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show anything from the record which could persuade this Court to take a contrary view that the one arrived at by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the finding about the contributory negligence contained in the impugned award does not warrant any interference. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was employed as Lecturer in Government College, Kalka. He was drawing salary of Rs.2880/- per month at the time of his death. The Tribunal fixed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.1920/- per month after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased from his monthly salary. A multiplier of `12' was applied to arrive at a total figure of Rs.2,76,480/-. A sum of Rs.3000/- was also allowed to the claimants as F.A.O.No.970 of 1987 -3- .... expenses for medical treatment of the deceased after the accident. A total amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. In my opinion, by no stretch of imagination, the aforementioned amount of compensation can be termed to be excessive keeping in view the fact that the deceased was employed as a Government Lecturer and the claimants (wife, two children and parents) were dependent upon him. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. November 17,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge