IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.55 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.01.2011 Daljit Singh .......Appellant Versus Bihari Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is preferred by Daljit singh, owner of the bus bearing registration No.PB-07-B-5880, against the award dated 3.09.2010 (for short ‘the impugned award’), passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.11.2007, Manjit Kumar, deceased, was going on his motorcycle from Hoshiarpur to Piplanwala side at a normal speed on correct side. When he reached near Polytechnic College on Hoshiarpur-Jalandhar road, the bus No.PB07-B-5880 came from opposite direction driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus did blow any horn and struck it against the motorcycle of the deceased. Manjit Kumar, deceased, died at the spot. With these facts, Bihari Lal, the father of the deceased, filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 3. The driver and owner of the bus resisted the claim on the ground that it was the motorcycle of the deceased which struck against the divider of the road and there was no fault of the driver of the bus. It was further pleaded that Manjit Kumar, deceased, died due to his own negligence. 4. The Insurance Company pleaded that the offending vehicle did not have a route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident. On merits, it was pleaded that no FIR or DDR was registered. So the company was not liable to pay the compensation. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- (1) Whether Manjit Kumar son of Bihari Lal died in a road side accident alleged to be caused by respondent No.1 Amarjit Singh while driving the bus bearing No.PB-07-B-5880 rashly and negligently ? OPA (2) Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for ? OPA (3) Whether Whether the alleged driver/respondent No.1 was not having a valid or effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident ? OPA. (4) Relief. 6. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. A multiplier of 11 was applied. A compensation to the tune of ` 2,66,000/- was awarded while holding that the driver and the owners were jointly and severally liable. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the respondent-Insurance Company. The appellant was held entitled to recover the amount from respondent No.2, Daljit Singh, owner of the bus. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the impugned award. 8. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the age of the claimant is 52 years. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was about 24 years. So, keeping in view the age of the claimant as well as of the deceased, a correct multiplier of 11 has been applied. It has been correctly held that Amarjit Singh, respondent-driver was rash and negligent in driving the bus. The plea that no Police report was lodged is not available because there was a compromise immediately after the accident. The factum of accident is not disputed. 9. There is no scope to interfere in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. 10. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. 11. Since the main appeal stands dismissed, civil misc. application (s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 06.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No