F.A.O.No. 634 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 634 of 1989 Date of Decision : 11.9.2008 Chander Pati and others ....Appellants Versus Nandan and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellants. ....... MAHESH GROVER.J.(Oral) This is an appeal by the claimant-appellants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal dated 4.3.1989. One Satpal Singh lost his life in an accident which occurred on 16.6.1988. He was aged 25/26 years and was survived by his widow and two minor children. The Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.600/- per month going by the statement of the claimant that he was earning Rs.20/- per day while working in a sugar mill at Panipat. The dependency was assessed at Rs.450/- per month after making deduction of Rs.150/- on account of personal expenses. A multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive at a figure of Rs.86,400/-. This compensation was, however, deducted by 50% by holding that the deceased was himself negligent to the F.A.O.No. 634 of 1989 -2- tune of 50% in contributing to the accident. The present appeal is directed against both the findings which have been returned by the Tribunal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the body of the deceased, according to the site plan, which was prepared during the course of investigation by the police, was lying in the middle of the road and therefore, he had contributed to the accident. Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, appeared as RW1 and testified that the deceased was in fact hanging on to the trolley of a tractor and in the process he lost control and fell on the road and thus came in the way of the bus and since this happened unexpectedly, he (driver of the bus) was not guilty of having caused the accident. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved this version as given by RW1 Nandan and also disbelieved the eye witness who had testified that the deceased was going on the correct left hand side of the road. After considering the entire matter and after perusing the record as also the site plan, I am of the view that the testimony of the eye witness cannot be discarded. He had testified that the deceased was going on the correct side of the road and it was only after the impact of the bus that he was thrown towards the right hand side of the road. This version of the accident cannot be discarded as it throws up two possibilities. It is probable that the deceased, who was going on a bicycle, which is an extremely light contraption, could have been F.A.O.No. 634 of 1989 -3- thrown to a considerable distance along with the cycle in the face of such an impact by a vehicle of the nature like a bus. At the same time another view can be that he can be on the right hand side of the road and in that eventuality also the bus driver had no business to go on the right hand side of the road. Looking it from both the angles, it appears that the bus driver was definitely guilty of having caused the accident. Consequently, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal is set aside. In so far as the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants is concerned, that has been more or less correctly assessed. However, no amount has been awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate. In the considered opinion of this Court an amount of Rs.20,000/- would be just and adequate to cover the funeral expenses and also the loss of estate etc. Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,06,400/-. Since the appellants have already been granted 50% of Rs.86,400/-, which was determined by the Tribunal, the remaining amount shall be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal stands disposed of. 11.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss