FAO NO. 4009 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 4009 of 2010 Date of order: 22.11.2011 Rajwinder Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus Karamjit Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amandeep Chabbra, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal by the claimants, the dependents of Sohan Singh, who lost his life in a road side accident that took place on 08.02.2008 for enhancement of compensation awarded to them in a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short 'the tribunal') vide award dated 19.09.2009. The claimants had brought their petition under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on the death of Sohan Singh. The case of the claimants is as under: FAO NO. 4009 of 2010 -2- On 08.02.2008, Sohan Singh, since deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12E-5323 to village Jatonwal Machhiwara. He was accompanied by Tarlochan Singh and Karam Singh on a separate motorcycle. They were moving their motorcycle on their left side of the road. At about 5.00 PM when they were near the bridge of village Dholran, a Tata Safari bearing registration No.PB-9F-2202, driven by Karamjit Singh, respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and had hit the motorcycle of Sohan Singh, on account of which, Sohan Singh fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body and died at the spot. The accident was reported to Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, where FIR No.11 dated 08.02.2008 was registered for an offence punishable under sections 279,427 and 304-A IPC. Sohan Singh was 50 years old at the time of his death and he was owner/driver of truck bearing registration No.PB- 12A/4665 having a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The claimants had spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- on his last rites. Though respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed separate written statement, yet their defence is identical. They have denied the maintainability of the claim petition in the present form. They have also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to bring the petition. They have denied any accident to have occurred with the Tata Safari in question and they claimed the FIR to have been lodged on wrong facts in order to get compensation. FAO NO. 4009 of 2010 -3- Respondent no.3, the insurer has also resisted the claim petition. According to it, the driver of Tata Safari was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. The answering respondent had sought exoneration from liability to indemnify the insured. Collusion is pleaded between the claimants and respondents no.1 and 2. Respondent no.3 has also denied the accident to have occurred with the Tata Safari in question. It is also added that no information regarding the accident was given to the answering respondent by respondents no. 1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether Sohan Singh had died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 08.02.2008 at about 5 PM in the area of village Salaura caused by respondent no.1 while driving Tata Safari bearing No.PB-9F-2202 rashly and negligently ?OPP 2- Whether respondent no.1 driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?If so, its effect ?OPR 3- Is the petition not maintainable as alleged ?OPR 4- Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Sohan Singh and are entitled to get compensation? If So, to what amount and from whom ?OPP 5- Relief” The parties led their respective evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition vide award dated 19.09.2009 and had awarded a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- as compensation to the claimants, to be shared by them in equal. FAO NO. 4009 of 2010 -4- Dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Shri Ashok Bector, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Amandeep Chabbra, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri D.K. Dogra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that learned Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased rightly. According to him, Ex.P-4 was proved on record as copy of income tax return of the deceased, vide which he had returned his income for the assessment year 2006-07 at Rs.85,900/-. According to him, learned Tribunal ignored this document and for no reason whatsoever, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. He has not questioned the cut applied to the income or the multiplier adopted to work out the compensation. His only grievance against the award is on the point of assessment of income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the income of the deceased has been taken at Rs.5000/- per month without there being any evidence and more than adequate compensation has already been assessed and awarded to the claimants. According to them, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement in the compensation. The claim of the claimants is that Sohan Singh was owner and driver of truck bearing registration No.PB-12A/4665 and that he was FAO NO. 4009 of 2010 -5- earning Rs.15,000/- per month from the said business. The income at Rs.15,000/- per month stands negatived by the fact that the income of the deceased returned for the assessment year 2006-07 is Rs.85,900/- by which the monthly income comes to seven thousand and odd rupees. The accident did not occur while the deceased was driving his truck. He was on a motorcycle when the accident took place. The income of the deceased at Rs.85,900/- per annum cannot be said only on account of the driving of the truck. The truck is still there with the claimants and if it is managed by the son of the deceased, it can still generate some income. So if the total income of the deceased is taken at Rs.85,900/- for the assessment year 2006-07, the income of the deceased by working as driver of his own truck can be taken as Rs.5000/- per month and this would be the income of the deceased which was lost on his death. The truck is now with the claimants and they can ply it by hiring a driver and can earn some amount therefrom. So no exception can be taken to the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal . Since the calculation of compensation is not questioned by learned counsel for the appellants, the amount awarded as compensation is found to be adequate. I therefore find no reason to enhance the compensation. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 22.11.2011 dinesh