In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2729 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 18, 2009 Jaskaran Singh and another ... Appellants vs. Rajvir Kaur and another ... Respondents F.A.O. No.2730 of 2009 (O&M) Jaskaran Singh and another ... Appellants vs. Amarjit Kaur and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate for Mr. Shivraj Angi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J This order of mine shall dispose of two connected appeal Nos.2729 and 2930 of 2009, having arisen out of the same accident, as such they are being decided together by this common judgment. The appellants-respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents') have challenged the legality of the award dated 5.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatinda (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondents in MACT Case No.25 of 1.5.2007, and compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondents in MACT Case No.26 of 1.5.2007. The crucial question to be determined in this case is “whether Bohar Singh and Gurcharan Singh died as a result of rash and negligent driving of combine being registration No.PAD-5802 (Tractor-5911) by the respondent No.1?” F.A.O. No. 2729 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 2730 of 2009 -2- The Tribunal decided the controversy against the respondents. In nutshell, the facts are that on 19.4.2007 Gurcharan Singh and Bohar Singh (since deceased) were proceeding on their motor cycle Hero Honda being driven by Bohar Singh, to Kothe Phulewale, whereas, Gurcharan Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. Jarnail Singh and Darshan Singh were following them on their separate scooter. When they reached near bus stand Mehma Sarkari, Jaskaran Singh while driving combine bearing registration No.PAD-5802 (Tractor-5911) came from the opposite side with its light off, and while driving it rashly and negligently struck against the motor cycle of the claimants, resultantly both of them fell down and were entangled with cutter of the combine, resulting into serious injuries and both of them died. The respondent No.1 after causing injuries fled away. FIR No.33 dated 19.4.2007 was lodged and these claim petitions were also filed which were contested by the respondents wherein they denied all the allegations stating that no such accident took place and raised similar pleas. From the pleadings of the parties, the following similar issues were framed in both the cases :- 1. Whether Bohar Singh died on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of Combine No.PAD-5802 (Tractor 5911), in accident which took place at 6.30 p.m. Near bus stand of village Mehma Sarkari on 19.4.2007?OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?OPP 3. Relief. Ultimately the Tribunal allowed the applications in the aforesaid terms. In order to prove the accident, the claimants examined Jarnail Singh an eye witness of the occurrence. He disclosed before the Tribunal that Bohar Singh along with Gurcharan Singh were going on the motor cycle. Gurcharan Singh was sitting on the pillion whereas, Bohar Singh driving the same. Jarnail Singh has given minute details of the occurrence and his credibility and trustworthiness has been checked on the altar of F.A.O. No. 2729 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 2730 of 2009 -3- cross examination, but he had the courage to pass through the same. The Tribunal while relying upon the testimony of Jarnail Singh (PW1) believed the same particularly when no evidence has been led by the respondent in order to rebut the story set up by the claimants. While determining the quantum of compensation, the wages of the deceased were assessed at Rs.3000/- per month while keeping them at par with the casual labourers and it while deducting 1/3rd, the dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum each. The deceased Bohar Singh died at the age of 22, and Gurcharan Singh at the age of 38 years, therefore, the Tribunal appears to have rightly applied the multiplier of 16 and 12 respectively. The Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective warranting no interference by this Court. Dismissed. December 18, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge