IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. F.A.O.(MVA) No.: 263 of 2004. Alongwith Cross-Objections No. 384 of 2004. Decided on: 15.07.2008. The Secretary, H.R.T.C. & Another. … … Appellants. Versus Smt. Sarswati Devi & Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For Respondent No.5: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): A challenge has been laid by medium of this FAO to the award passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur, dated 18.5.2004 in MAC case No.68 of 2003. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this FAO are that Shri Khiali Ram was sitting on a parapet on 12.4.2003 at 1.00 P.M. at Paprola near a bridge. Bus bearing No.HP-24-4555 being driven by respondent No.5 in a rash and negligent manner came from Kuthera and struck with the deceased, who fell on the road and his right leg was fractured. He was taken to PHC Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Kuthera and then to District Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter was shifted to I.G.M.C., Shimla where he remained admitted from 13.4.2003 to 8.5.2003. He died on 14.6.2003. The respondents No, 1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur seeking compensation to the extent of rupees ten lacs. The claim petition was resisted by the driver of the bus, i.e. respondent No.5. The Regional Manager of the H.R.T.C. also filed reply to the claim petition. The learned MACT on the basis of the evidence led by the parties awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The appellants have challenged this award dated 18.5.2004. The claimants have also field cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation bearing cross-objections No.384 of 2004. Mr. H.S. Rawat has strenuously argued that the award dated 18.5.2004 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the driver of the Corporation was neither rash nor negligent while driving the bus. Shri Lovneesh Kanwar appearing on behalf of the claimants has supported the award dated 18.5.2004. He also submitted in support of his cross-objections that the learned M.A.C.T, has not applied proper multiplier. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The accident has taken place on 12.4.2003 at about 1.00 P.M. PW-4, Shri Dila Ram has deposed that the bus was going from Ghumarwin to Taliana and Shri Khiali Ram was sitting on parapet and the bus came and struck against him and he was standing on the road side at the relevant time since he was grazing his cattle. They raised an alarm, but the bus driver did - 3 - not stop the bus. The F.I.R. Ex.P-A was registered on the same day at 8.55 P.M. by Bhoop Singh, son of the deceased. The manner in which the accident took place is precisely mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.P-A. Ex.P-B is the death certificate of the deceased. RW-1 Shri Raghubir Singh, respondent No.5 has stated that the bus had not struck with any person and according to him at the relevant time, a jeep had crossed at a fast speed, but he was not specific that he had seen the jeep striking the deceased. The presence of witnesses, RW-2 and RW-4 on the spot is doubtful. If the accident had not taken place by the bus driven by respondent No.5, where was the occasion for him to keep the names and addresses of RW-2 and RW-4 with him? The bus, in fact, was stopped by the villagers on its return journey. The factum that the bus had crossed at the same time around 1.15 P.M. when the accident has taken place stands established from the statement of RW-1 Shri Raghubir Singh. The driver has taken a false plea that his bus was not involved in the accident. There is sufficient material on record to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5, Raghubir Singh. The plea raised by the driver of the bus that the accident might have been caused by the speeding jeep is not plausible in view of the evidence discussed hereinabove. The accident has taken place which has resulted in fracture of right leg of the deceased. The disability was assessed at 80%. He succumbed to the injuries on 14.6.2003. He was aged about 55 years. The learned M.A.C.T. has applied the multiplier of five. The Court is of the considered opinion that the multiplier of five applied by the learned M.A.C.T. is in accordance with law. The submission of Mr. Lovneesh that the multiplier of ten should have been applied at the age of 55 cannot be accepted. The learned M.A.C.T. on the - 4 - basis of correct appreciation of the evidence has come to the right conclusion that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.5. The learned M.A.C.T. has awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar has not made out any case for the enhancement of the compensation. Consequently, there is no merit in the FAO as well as the cross- objections and the same are dismissed. No costs. July 15, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.