FAO No.2907 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2907 of 2000 Date of Decision. 10.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office-II, SCO No.337- 340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney ......Appellant Versus Smt. Maya Devi widow of Rajiv Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the respondents. 2. FAO No.2114 of 2001 Smt. Maya Devi widow of Rajiv Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Roshan Singh son of Bachan Singh, Jat Sikh, resident of Mohalla Prem Nagar, Bazar Jueewala, P.S. Jueewala, District Dehradun and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. None for respondent No.5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- FAO No.2907 of 2000 -2- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is by the insurance company denying the liability on the ground that consistent with the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased scooterist was himself responsible for the accident, it could not have made the insurer liable and on a no fault basis awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The claimants themselves came on appeal against the finding that the deceased was negligent on the issue of quantum. The Tribunal without recording a finding that the scooterist himself was negligent, however, observed that the negligence of either a tractor or truck drivers had not been established. The accident took place when the truck had already collided and lay parked on the road. The accident took place at 10.30 PM when according to the claimant, there was no lights and the drivers of the respective vehicles namely of the tractor and the truck had not taken sufficient care to provide a safety cordon around the vehicles. There was an eye-witness to the accident, who had spoken about the fact that two vehicles namely the truck and the tractor had remained parked without lights and the accident took place on account of the dangerous parking of the vehicles. The Motor Vehicles Act itself provides through Sections 121 and 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the driver of a motor vehicle shall make sufficient signals to put any person on guard about the stationing of the vehicle and Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act contains a statutory interdict against leaving a vehicle in dangerous position. If there was evidence that the drivers of the truck and the driver had been negligent in parking FAO No.2907 of 2000 -3- the vehicles without light in the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal ought to have accepted that the respective drivers of the vehicles were negligent and it is their negligence that contributed to a collision of the scooterist. The Tribunal failed to note that the non-examination of the drivers of the truck and the tractor was material and if they had not come to Court to explain how they had taken caution to prevent any other collision from taking place then an adverse inference must be drawn by the non-examination. I would, therefore, record a finding that in the manner in which the accident was narrated, which was not controverted the Tribunal ought to have found the drivers of the truck and the tractor to be responsible for the accident and held the respective owners vicariously liable. 3. The compensation must also be considered from the fact that the deceased was said to be 24 years of age and he was working as a driver. The claimants were young widow, minor child and the Tribunal took the yearly dependence to be Rs.16,000/-. I would retain the same and adopt a multiplier of 18 instead of 16 adopted by the Tribunal and determine a compensation towards loss of dependence at Rs.2,88,000/-. I will provide an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the minor child. I will make a further addition of Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and another Rs.2,500/- towards transportation charges and Rs.2500/- for funeral expenses. In all, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.3,13,000/-. The Tribunal had already awarded a compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- FAO No.2907 of 2000 -4- but in view of its finding that the claimant were not established the negligence of the tractor and the truck owners itself left the claimants with merely an entitlement to Rs.50,000/- on no fault basis under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded shall bear an interest @7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The amount of Rs.50,000/-, which has been received shall get adjusted and it is stated that the amount has been paid by the appellant-insurance company. In view of the fact that I found the truck as well as the tractor to be both responsible in equal measure, I will apportion the liability to the insurance company at 50% being the insurer for the tractor and would apportion of 50% liability on the owner of the truck namely Tirlok Singh, respondent No.5 in the insurance company's appeal. The appeal by the insurer is dismissed and the appeal on behalf of the claimant is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 10, 2010 Pankaj*