FAO No.3592 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3592 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 12.05.2011 Uttar Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Aligarh, District Aligarh (U.P.) (owner of the offending vehicle/bus No.UP-81-R-9586) ......Appellant Versus Smt. Satenderi wife of Shri Daulat Ram and another .....Respondents 2. FAO No.3593 of 2011 (O&M) Uttar Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Aligarh, District Aligarh (U.P.) (owner of the offending vehicle/bus No.UP-81-R-9586) ......Appellant Versus Daulat Ram son of Sh. Sohan Singh and another .....Respondents 3. FAO No.3594 of 2011 (O&M) Uttar Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Aligarh, District Aligarh (U.P.) (owner of the offending vehicle/bus No.UP-81-R-9586) ......Appellant Versus Shobha Rani wife of late Sh. Rajender and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. All these three appeals are on the issue of negligence where FAO No.3592 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the State Transport Corporation was interested in contending that in a case of collision between a bus and motor cycle, the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident at all. The contention of the Corporation was that the vehicle was stationary and when the passengers were getting down, the driver of motor cycle drove rashly and dashed against the bus. All the cases had been filed as applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal found on evidence that there had been negligence established on the part of the driver and proceeded to award compensation on the scales of compensation laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. The compensation itself is not a point in question before this Court but the contention by the learned counsel is that there had been no proof of the negligence and without such proof, award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not tenable. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the Transport Corporation was involved in the accident. In a case of collision, the issue of negligence itself falls round, where the claim emanates from the legal representatives of the person, whose income was less than Rs.40,000/- per annum. Where the Tribunal assessed the income even less than Rs.40,000/-, even if an application had been made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court's power to appraise a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been affirmed by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi 2011 (2) SCC 240. I would apply, therefore, the principle of strict liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and find that even in the absence of negligence, the claimants were FAO No.3592 of 2011 (O&M) -3- entitled to pursue the claim and secure the awards in the manner as determined by the Tribunal. This I do, in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction to find that the awards of compensation that are modest need not be upset and to be looking for a re-appraisal on the issue of negligence. 2. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Pankaj*