FAO No.4605 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4605 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Surjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Manmohan Singh, Advocate for Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.SS Bhinder, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) CM Nos. 19532-33-CII of 2010 Despite notice, no reply has been filed so far. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 107 days in refiling and 18 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Applications stand disposed of. FAO No. 4605 of 2010 FAO No.4605 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 17.11.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the Insurance Company-appellant, driver and owner of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay compensation to the claimants, jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the author of the FIR, who was the eye witness, Lakhbir Singh was not examined. He further contends that there being no conclusive proof of the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4-claimants opposed the prayer and stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. From the perusal of the record, it emerges that though Lakhbir Singh, the alleged eye witness and author of the FIR, was not examined, but there is nothing on record, contrary to the evidence, to rebut the assertions made by the claimants. FIR Ex.C.1 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the trial is going on. Charge has been framed against the driver. It is proved on record, as per postmortem report Ex.AW2/A, the age of the deceased was 50 years. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, adequate and reasonable. Therefore, in view of the above, no interference is called for in FAO No.4605 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 9.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE