FAO No.2715 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2715 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 13, 2009 Managing Director, PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ... Appellant VERSUS Harpal Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.4. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of the appeal, preferred by the Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (herein referred as `the appellant') challenging the award dated 23.3.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,10,000/- to claimants – respondents No.1 to 3 (herein referred as `the claimants') on account of the death of Harpreet Singh in a motor vehicle accident. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 11.11.2007 at about 11.20 FAO No.2715 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] AM, Harpreet Singh and his wife Diljot Kaur were going on a motor cycle towards Maur Mandi. When they reached in the area of Maur Kalan, near Gurudwara, a bus bearing Reg.No.PB-11P-7407, driven by respondent No.4 rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and hit the motor cycle. Resultantly, both the occupants of the motor cycle suffered multiple injuries and died at the spot. As an aftermath of the accident, claim petition was filed, which was ultimately allowed in the terms, as referred to above. Heard. The eye witness, namely Teja Singh while appearing in the witness box as PW1 stated that when he along with one Major Singh was going from Mansa to Kutiwal Kalan in a car, they noticed the deceased going on a motor cycle ahead of them. Respondent No.4 while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the motor cycle, as a result of which Harpreet Singh and Diljot Kaur died at the spot. Though, the appellant's witnesses are not fair in their conduct, but Parmod Kumar (RW1) has admitted the accident, yet he has given coloured version, while stating that the accident occurred due to the slipping of the motor cycle against a military truck, which was part of military convoy. Birbal Sharma (RW2) also corroborated the version as given by Parmod Kumar (RW1), but this version does not appear to be true for the reasons; firstly, that no official from the Military has been examined to prove that any convoy was going on that route on that day. Secondly, had it been the case of false implication, then respondent No.4 should have submitted his grievance before the authorities. But no such document has come forth. Thirdly, it is not known as to why the witnesses would leave the real culprit and involve respondent No.4 without any ill-will or enmity with him. Thus, the FAO No.2715 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] negligence of respondent No.4 stands proved beyond any doubt. The deceased Harpreet Singh was aged about 30 years and was serving as L/Nk in the Indian Army. The salary certificate (Ex.A3) depicted that he was getting Rs.10,311/- per month, which was not disputed by the appellant. The Tribunal while deducting 1/3rd as his self- dependency, assessed his net monthly dependency as Rs.6800/- PM i.e. Rs.81,600/- per annum (6800 x 12). Since, he died issueless and his wife had also died, therefore, the Tribunal while considering the age of the claimants (his parents), rightly applied the multiplier of `5' and awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-, which is quite adequate, fair and reasonable. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. November 13, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE