FAO No. 3693 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 24.05.2011 Jagtar Singh son of Pargan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Kashmir Kaur widow of late Avinash Lal son of Mehar Chand and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. B.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is filed by the driver and owner of the tractor, which was admittedly involved in an accident resulting in collision with a scooter. The scooterist died in the accident. The appeal had been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the scooterist was himself responsible for the accident having been drunk at the time when the collision had taken place and Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not make possible a claim at the instance of a tort feasor. Whenever there is a collision of two vehicles, there ought to be a miniscule percentage of negligence of yet another vehicle and when Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act sets out a case of strict liability, there is no necessity for a person to establish that the other driver was responsible or had been rash and negligent. Section 163-A of FAO No. 3693 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the Motor Vehicles Act will make it possible for the claimant to pursue the claim for compensation without having to prove any aspect of negligence on the part of the respondents. 3. The only point that has to be seen is whether the Tribunal has applied the scales of compensation provided under Schedule II. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and assessed the compensation by applying a multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased and has also added the conventional heads of claim as provided under Schedule II. 4. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate and just. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Pankaj*