FAO NO.297 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.297 of 2010 Date of decision:13.10.2011 Sahib Singh and others ...Appellant(s) Versus Jagatvir Singh @ Jaify and others ...Respondent(s) FAO No.4044 of 2010 Angrej Kaur & others ...Appellant(s) Versus Sahib Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, for the appellant(s) in FAO No.297 of 2010 and for the respondents in FAO No.4044 of 2010 Mr.Karan Singh,Advocate for Mr.Anil Kshetrarpal, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No.4044 of 2010 and for the claimants-respondents in FAO No.297 of 2010, -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No.297 of 2010, preferred by the driver and owners (appellants) for absolving from their liability to pay the awarded compensation and, FAO No.4044 of 2010 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount, as both of them have arisen out of a common award dated 26.10.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal. FAO NO.297 of 2010 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. In FAO No.297 of 2010, the sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident as one of the witnesses, namely, Gurmit Singh (brother of the deceased) in his first version given to the police in inquest report, Mark `A' stated that tyre of motor cycle slipped naturally and it fell down and due to which the deceased Harminder Singh sustained injuries and lateron died. The DDR was recorded on the version of Gurmeet Singh, PW2, in which, he stated that the deceased fell down from the motorcycle due to slipping of its tyre and during treatment he died. The learned Tribunal relied upon the testimonies of eye-witness Ram Kumar, PW1 and Gurmeet Singh, PW2. As per the testimony of Ram Kumar, PW1, it is made out that the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Sahib Singh. It has also been made out that the claimants were telephonically informed by some persons about the accident. The learned Tribunal observed that Ram Kumar, PW1, not being related to any of parties, was an independent witness. The version of this witness was corroborated by Gurmeet Singh, PW2, who also added that on receipt of information about the incident, the police approached the family of deceased and obtained the signatures of mother of respondent No.1 as well as other witnesses under the pretext of registering a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle. This witness also deposed that his version was not correctly recorded by the police in the DDR in order to help the appellants. However, after making repeated requests the police FAO NO.297 of 2010 3 registered the case against driver Sahib Singh. In the cross-examination, the driver Sahib Singh admitted that he is being tried under Sections 279, 304- A IPC. These circumstances suggest that appellant Sahib Singh was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No contrary evidence was adduced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. In view of above, there is no reason to discard the finding on issue No.1, recorded by the Tribunal that driver/appellant of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident resulting in the death of deceased Harminder Singh. As the offending vehicle was not insured, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellants, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. In FAO No.4044 of 2010, the sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that at the time of accident, the deceased was of 35 years. It was asserted that he was working as Conductor and earning `10,000/-. But there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. In the absence of any positive proof regarding the income, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at `4500/- on the basis of fixed daily wages as prevalent at that time. Keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3rd deduction was assessed towards his personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier of 17 was applied and thus a sum of `6,12,000/- was awarded alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization to the claimants. FAO NO.297 of 2010 4 In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal, after considering the income, dependency and age of the deceased, awarded the adequate compensation to the claimants. For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE