The main legal point established is the determination of fault and negligence in a motor vehicular accident, including the application of the multiplier for future prospects and the appropriate compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

Darshan Singh, J.

CM-16230-CII-2013 in FAO No.4019 of 2013

1. There is delay of 46 days in re-filing the present appeal. The appellants have filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay.

2. Heard on the application.

3. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Main Appeals

1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of both the appeals mentioned above, which have been arisen out of the same award dated 16.01.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), vide which the claimants-appellants of FAO No.4019 of 2013 have been awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,54,250/- on account of death of Shiv Rattan Bhardwaj in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 10.08.2010.

2. FAO No.3608 of 2013 has been filed by the General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, the owner of bus No.CH- 01-GA-5025 (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) to assail the impugned award dated 16.01.2013.

3. FAO No.4019 of 2013 has been filed by claimants Ashima and another for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the vehicle contended that the driver of the bus was not sole negligent for this accident. The accident was head on collision. Deceased was driving the motorcycle at a fast speed, so he was also the contributory negligent for causing this accident. She further contended that the multiplier has been wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal. The age of the deceased was more than 40 years at the time of the accident. She further contended that the future prospects should have been granted at the rate of 30% on the income of the deceased instead of 50% as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, she contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that less amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium to the widow as well as towards the funeral expenses. He further contended that the deceased was below 40 years of age. So, the future prospects at the rate of 50% of the income of the deceased have been rightly awarded by the learned Tribunal. He contended that Rs. 1,00,000/- should have been awarded as loss of consortium to appellant-claimant Ashima the widow of deceased Shiv Rattan Bhardwaj and Rs. 25,000/- should have been awarded as funeral expenses. Thus, he pleaded for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

7. As per the case of appellant-owner of the vehicle, the motorcyclist came from the opposite direction and when he saw the bus at small turn, he lost his balance, slipped and hit the front side of the bus. The driver of the bus was not at fault. This plea raised by the appellant-owner of the vehicle and the statement of RW-1 Satish Kumar the driver of the bus will not be sufficient to establish the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. No evidence has been adduced by the appellant-owner of the bus to establish as to what was the width of the road at the place of accident. There is also no evidence to show as to whether the collision has taken place in the middle of the road or on the side of the road. In the absence of this evidence, no conclusion can be drawn that the deceased was contributory negligent. Appellant-claimant Ashima who was the pillion rider and the witness of occurrence, has categorically deposed that the bus in question came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle in front. Due to the impact, they fell down and the bus crushed the motorcycle and leg of her husband who sustained grievous multiple injuries and died due to the said injuries. It is also not disputed that the criminal case has been registered against respondent No.1 Satish Kumar