F.A.O.NO.506 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO.506 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: 30.04.2010 Surat Singh etc. ...Appellants VS. Surinder Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: None for the appellants. Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. MOHINDER PAL, J.(Oral) This is an appeal filed by claimants-appellants for enhancement of the compensation amount under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award passed by the Tribunal vide which the appellants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,53,600/- along with interest. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.1988 at about 7.00 P.M. Mohinder Singh claimant-injured was going on his motor cycle bearing No.HYQ-2417 on Jagadhri-Amabla road, for going to Village Holi. F.A.O.NO.506 of 1991 2 At that time, Ajit Singh (since deceased) was pillion rider on the motor cycle. When they had covered about 2 kms. of distance on Jagadhri-Ambala road, a truck bearing No.HNA-2267 was seen by them going ahead. The truck driver without giving any indication turned his truck towards his right hand side while motor cyclist after giving dipper and blowing horn was trying to pass the said truck. In this process, the truck hit the motor-cycle which fell down. Both the occupants had received injuries. Both were admitted to Civil Hospital Jagadhri. From there, both were referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh. Ajit Singh expired on 31.12.1988 in the P.G.I. whereas Mohinder Singh regained consciousness after about ten days of the accident. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. In absence of the appellants or their counsel, I have left with no option except to decide this case on the basis of the documents available on the file. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has argued that as per the insurance policy their liability was limited to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. It has been submitted that the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with a liability beyond this amount and the Award of the Tribunal requires to be modified. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the truck has submitted that sufficient amount has been awarded by the Tribunal and there is nothing on record to show that income of the appellants was more than Rs.1200/- P.M., which has been assessed by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 16. The above mentioned amount has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. F.A.O.NO.506 of 1991 3 Though in the grounds of the appeal, the appellants have mentioned about Annexure P-2, according to which, the deceased had sold his crop for a sum of Rs.51,000/- in the year 1988-89 i.e. prior to the date of accident. However, no such document is available on the file. Learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2 is fair enough to concede on the point that the Award is on lower side and the monthly income assessed @ Rs.1200 P.M. is slightly less, than what should have been assessed by the Tribunal. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the family background, the liability, the future prospects, I am of the considered opinion that Award of Rs.1,75,000/- will meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The appellants will be further entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the realization of the amount. Learned counsel representing respondent No.3-Insurance Company has brought to my notice that earlier Award amount i.e. 1,53,600/- has already been paid to the appellants. Therefore, the balance amount will be paid by driver and owner of the truck. The liability of both these respondents will be joint and several. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. April 30, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE