FAO NO.3782 of 2009(O&M) [1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
FAO No.3782 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided on : July 31, 2009
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation
… Applicant-appellant
VERSUS
Rati Ram and others
… Respondents
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla,
Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
CM No.17606-CII of 2009 is allowed and the delay of 98 days
in filing the appeal is condoned.
Challenge is to the award dated 19.1.2009 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby, claimant – respondent Rati
Ram and Shanu Devi alias Savitri Devi (herein referred as the claimants)
were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,30,400/- on account of the
death of their daughter Anita in a motor vehicle accident.
Admittedly, the accident is not in dispute. However, counsel
for the appellant – UP State Road Transport Corporation has raised two fold
arguments; firstly, that the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.UP-80AM-
9504 was not at fault and secondly; the compensation has been awarded on
FAO NO.3782 of 2009(O&M) [2 ]
higher side.
Heard.
So far as the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is
concerned, it is observed that PW4 Inder Pal, who was driving the
motorcycle, while appearing in the witness box has stated that the offending
bus was being driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed and that it hit
his motorcycle from the back side. Besides, the driver of the offending
vehicle, namely Salim also appeared as RW1 and stated that the motorcycle
had struck with a stationary car and resultantly, the deceased had fallen on
the road in front of the bus, as such the accident could not be avoided
despite his best efforts. Gitam Singh (RW2), who was Conductor on the
offending bus, while appearing in the witness box has given altogether a
different version and denied the factum of accident even. Considering the
inconsistencies in the statements of the appellant’s own witnesses, the
Tribunal has rightly ignored the story set by it and has rightly drawn an
adverse inference against the appellant. Had the motorcycle struck against
a parked car, there was no reason for the appellant’s witnesses to remain
silent regarding registration number of that car.
Now, coming to the second contention of the appellant, the
Tribunal has assessed the compensation by taking into account the daily-
wages of a labourer and applying multiplier of 12 after deducting 1/3rd
amount as self dependency.
In the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal appears to be quite fair and reasonable, after holding the driver of
the offending bus at fault.
FAO NO.3782 of 2009(O&M) [3 ]
No grounds to interfere in the impugned award are made out.
Dismissed.
July 31, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE