Judgment:
Archana arora FAO No.1102 of 1999 1 2014.07.11 17:17 I am the author of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.1102 of 1999 Date of decision: July 8, 2014 Bhag Wanti and others ....... Appellants Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vishal, Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Charanbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation determined on 'No fault basis' of `50,000/- for death of a male aged 50 years. The deceased was riding a bicycle when the bus belonging to PRTC dashed against him and he succumbed to the injuries next day. The accident was spoken to by PW-2-Hasan Lal who stated that he had lodged the FIR setting out the circumstances when the accident took place. The involvement of the vehicle was itself not denied but it was stated that the cyclist was riding a cycle recklessly and in spite of the safe driving of the bus the accident had taken place. The driver gave evidence to the effect that one truck without any registration number was going ahead of him FAO No.1102 of 1999 2 and the cyclist who was coming from the opposite side felt nervous on seeing the truck and the bus and fell down. The cyclist was not hit by the bus but the cyclist fell down by his own fault and later died. This defence was accepted by the tribunal.
2. I find the appreciation of evidence by the tribunal to be wholly faulty. A person does not fall from the cycle and suffer fatal injuries without a collision with the bus. There could not have been as serious a injury as to cause death to a cyclist if there were no collision. In every situation of involvement of a heavy vehicle, the tribunal shall always look to greater circumspection and care from the driver of a heavy vehicle without to look for a scope of the cyclist or a pedestrian as contributing to the accident. By the very nature of things a pedestrian by hitting against another cannot cause death unless an assault was with criminal intention. Same way, a cyclist cannot dash against a pedestrian and cause death. It is only a motor vehicle which could cause death and therefore there is a scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act for establishing a tribunal and for determination of compensation for death and injury resulting from a motor accident. In the case of a collision the tribunal ought to have rejected the driver's fanciful version that the cyclist got nervous and fell down from the cycle and died without a collision with the bus. The death could not have just happened in the manner narrated by the driver. I reverse the finding of the tribunal and hold the driver of the PRTC to be responsible for the accident and hold the employer liable.
3. The deceased was said to be a mason aged FAO No.1102 of 1999 3 50 years and the claimants were widow and two major children. I take the income as stated before the tribunal and provided for 1/3rd deduction and re-assess the compensation as under:- Fatal accidents Date of accident 04/02/96 Age 50 Occupation Claimants: Widow, 2 major children S.No.Heads of claim Tribunal High Court (Amount Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Income 3000/- Add, % of increase 2 30%/50% 3 Deduction 2000/- 4 Multiplicand 24000/- 5 Multiplier 6 Loss of dependence 3,12,000/- 7 Medical expenses 8 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 9 Loss to estate 2500/- 10 Funeral expenses 5000/- 11 Total 4,19,500/- There shall be an award for `4,19,500/-. The amount in excess of what has already been granted by the Tribunal shall attract interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount brought through this award shall be distributed in the ratio of 2:1:1 amongst the widow and two major sons. The right of enforcement shall be available against the Transport Corporation.
4. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 8, 2014 archana