FAO No.425 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.425 of 2011 Date of Decision : 19.01.2011 Oriental Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Sewa Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (herein referred to as ‘the appellant’), has preferred this appeal against the award dated 10.09.2010 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (herein referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Sewa Singh and others (claimants), were awarded an amount of ` 9,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2005, Gurdial Singh along with the deceased, Jasbir Singh, was coming back from Gobindgarh to Sangrur in a Maruti Zen car bearing No.HR-19-B- 0219. When they reached near the Bus Stand of Hardaspur, the car, 1 FAO No.425 of 2011 which was being driven by Gurdial Singh, rammed into a Tata truck bearing No.HR-46-A-0904, which was standing in the middle of the road without using dipper and indicators and all the three occupants received various injuries. Due to the accident, Jasbir Singh succumbed to the injuries whereas Gurdial Singh was still bed ridden. The third occupant, Kirpal Singh, had also received some injuries. It was alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of truck No.HR-46-A-0904, as he had not used parking lights or indicator and therefore, created obstacle on the main road. 3. In this backdrop, the claimants filed claim petition for the grant of compensation against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company (herein ‘the appellant’), on the ground that the deceased, Jasbir Singh, was 30 years of age at the time of his death. He was working with a private contractor and getting salary of Rs.7500/- per month and Rs.3,500/- per month from dairy farming. He was the only bread winner for the claimants. 4. Upon notice, the respondents contested the claim petition and denied the accident. They pleaded that if at all any accident took place, it was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of Gurdial Singh, the driver of the Zen car. The appellant-Insurance Company averred that the driver of the truck in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The truck was not having valid route permit and fitness certificate. However, the owner did not contest the petition and was proceeded against ex parte. 2 FAO No.425 of 2011 5. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether respondent No.1 by rashly and negligently driving truck No.HR-46-A-0904 caused death of Jasbir Singh ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation on account of death of Jasbir Singh, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether driver of truck No.HR-46-A-0904 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 4. Whether this petition is bad for non joinder for driver and insurer of Car No.HR-19-B-0291 ? OPR 5. Whether this petition is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPR 6. Whether this tribunal has not jurisdiction in entertain and try this petition ? OPR 7. Relief. 6. The learned Tribunal, after appraisal of evidence, decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants by holding that the accident in question took place on 20.10.2005 in the area of village Hardaspur due to rash and negligent act of the driver, who had parked truck No.HR-46-A-0904 in the middle of the road without switching on its parking lights, wherein Maruti Zen car No.HR-19-B-0219 hit against the truck from behind resulting into injuries to all the three occupants including the deceased, Jasbir Singh. While deciding Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 keeping in view the age of the deceased, Jasbir Singh, and awarded compensation to the 3 FAO No.425 of 2011 tune of Rs.9,00,000/- to the claimants. Issue No.3 was decided against the appellant-Insurance Company by holding that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending truck at the time of the accident. Issues No.4 to 6 were formal and not pressed before the learned Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was 32 years. The claimants were dependant upon him. The accident is proved. The onus to prove that the driver or the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy, heavily lies on the Insurance Company by leading positive evidence. The appellant has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The compensation awarded to the claimants is just and reasonable. There is no infirmity in the well- reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. There is no scope to modify or set aside the award. 9. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 19.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4