F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 Date of decision: 11-12-2009 Oriental Insurance Company .........Appellants Vs Pyara Chand and others .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the award dated 24.6.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, Haryana whereby he awarded an amount of Rs.5,78,000/- in claim petition No. 59 of 2008 titled Pyara Chand and others Vs. Daljit Singh and another, and also awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in claim petition No. 60 of 2008 titled Pyara Chand Vs. Daljit Singh together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the entire awarded amount. The facts are these: On 9.3.2008 Rama Devi and her husband Pyara Chand and others were present in the main bazar Kalka near bus stand being in wait for a bus for Dharampur. Around 4.30 p.m., a Tata Safari bearing registration No. CH03Y-2242 came from Shimla side being driven by Daljit Singh respondent rashly and negligently and at a very high speed although a number of persons were present in the bazar. The Tata Safari hit against F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 2 Pyara Chand, his wife Ram Devi and many other persons by going on the extreme wrong side of the road near the shops and as a result thereof 10-12 persons including Pyara Chand and Ram Devi suffered injuries. Rama Devi succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The injured persons were taken to Civil Hospital, Kalka. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the Insurance Company on 22.2.2008 copy of which is Annexure A-1. The learned Tribunal without disposing it off, has passed the impugned award. He further puts that in re:Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S.Rajapriya and Others 2005(2) Punjab Law Reporter 650 the Apex court reduced the multiplier from 16 to 12 as age of the deceased was 38 whereas in the instant one, the multiplier of 16 has been applied though the age of the deceased was also 38 years. Furthermore, a careful delving into the impugned award would reveal that 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased has not been reduced from her monthly income. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. In Annexure A-1 the copy of the application purportedly moved by the Appellant insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been mentioned with specificity that “Respondent has colluded with the claimant and claim is not being contested by taking proper defences as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, to protect F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 3 the interest of the applicant, the applicant may be allowed to take all such defences which are available to the other respondents against the claimants under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.” It is beyond comprehension as to how the learned Tribunal had proceeded to decide the claim petition without passing any order on this application. If the same had been allowed only then the respondent insurance company could have taken all such defences as were available to the other respondents against the claimants. Without being permitted to take all such defences, the appellant could not conduct the case in a manner as desired by law. It should have been decided one way or the other. Such being the circumstances, the impugned award is set aside with a direction to the learned Tribunal to dispose of the said application and decide the matter afresh, after procuring the presence of the claimants as well as the respondent Daljeet Singh. The appellant shall put in appearance through its counsel before the learned Tribunal on 15.1.2010. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 11, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No