Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ... vs Harpal Kaur And Others on 11 January, 2010
FAO No. 5116 of 2009 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 5116 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.01.2010
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (P.R.T.C.) and another
....Appellants
Versus
Harpal Kaur and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, Advocate,
for the appellants.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 25039-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed and the delay of 27 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No. 25040-CII of 2009 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal.
It has been averred in the application, that the delay has occurred due to lapse on the part of the counsel for the appellants.
It is well settled law, that the parties should not be allowed to suffer for the fault on the part of the counsel.
Notice of the application was issued. In spite of service, nobody has appeared to oppose the application. The averments, which are supported by an affidavit, go unrebutted.
CM is accordingly allowed. Delay of 94 days in filing the FAO No. 5116 of 2009 (O&M) -2- appeal is condoned.
FAO No. 5116 of 2009
Service on respondent No.5 is dispensed with. This appeal by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, has been filed against the award dated 11.2.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, vide which the claim petition filed by the respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stands allowed.
The claimants are the mother, brother and sisters of the deceased, who were dependent upon him. The deceased-Jaswinder Singh had died in a motor vehicular accident on 2.10.2005 while coming from his residence towards Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana on his motorcycle No. PB-10AM-3161.
The claim petition was contested.
On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held, that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased-Jaswinder Singh, and also held, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-11M-9883 by Avtar Singh.
Keeping in view the income of the deceased and loss suffered by brother and sister, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.6,44,436/-. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.
Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has challenged the quantum of the compensation primarily on the ground, that the deceased was unmarried and, therefore, FAO No. 5116 of 2009 (O&M) -3- brothers and sisters, who are aged 15 years, 17 years and 19 years and also the mother, were not entitled to the compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
The plea raised is, that the brother was to attain majority within few years, whereas one of the sisters had already attained majority, and other was to attain majority within a period of one year. The mother of the deceased was already in receipt of family pension, and was not dependant upon the deceased.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the reason that admittedly the claimants were dependent on deceased-Jaswinder Singh. He was responsible for marriage of his both the sisters as well the study of his brother, who was 15 years of age. In absence of father of the deceased, he was to perform all the functions and settle the family. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive.
No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the award passed.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 11, 2010 R.S.