IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 186 of 2004 Cross Objections No. 310 of 2004 Date of decision July 8, 2008 __________________________________________________________ 1. FAO 186 of 2004 New India Assurance Company ….Appellant Versus Smt. Brahmi Devi & others. ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ FAO No. 186 of 2004 For the Appellant : S/Shri Kapil Dev Sood & Sanjeev Sood, Advocates. For the Respondent No.1: Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents No. 2 & 3: Shri Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur awarding a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- for the death of Shri Vipin Kumar (son of Smt. Brahmi Devi, respondent No.1), who died in the accident involving the tractor of respondent Shri Tulsi Ram driven by Shri Shankar Singh. It was pleaded that Vipin Kumar was knocked down by the tractor on 30.12.2002. At that point of time, he was aged about 17 years and he was also 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 studying in class IX. The claimant further pleaded that he had been doing tuition work and had been regularly contributing Rs. 1500/- per month to the family. The claim petition was resisted by respondents including appellant herein on a number of ground one of them being that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger on the tractor. On the issues as settled before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it has been held that Shri Vipin had died because of the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the finding onf issue no. 4 i.e. as to whether the deceased was traveling as gratuitous passenger or not. Learned counsel has pleaded that on the basis of record, the Insurance Company-appellant had conclusively established the fact that the he was traveling on the tractor. He submits that the findings of learned trial court to the effect that he was not a gratuitous passenger is not correct. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in The New India Insurance Company Vs. Vedwati and others JT 2007 (4) SC 28, in support of his submissions. I am not inclined to accept this submission as the record of the case does not establish this fact. PW2 Brahami Devi, the mother of deceased, has stepped into the witness box to say that her son was hit by tractor while he was walking. In the claim petition as filed, the pleadings in paragraph 24 are to the effect that on the date of accident the deceased was walking on the road after visiting his relatives and when he reached near village Baroha, a tractor came at a very fast speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and then struck against the deceased. This pleading is consistent with the evidence of PW2 Brahami Devi who has deposed in her evidence that she was informed by the villagers that her son had been hit and runover by the tractor. Pw3 Shri Upender Singh who was an eye witness has stated that the deceased was walking on the 3 road and was hit by tractor which was being driven in rash or negligent speed. This evidence has remained uncontroverted. Learned counsel for appellant has urged that First Information Report Ext.P4 clearly establishes on record that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passengers when the tractor met with the accident. This submission deserves to be rejected out right. The reason being that the Insurance Company has produced no evidence on record except tendering FIR Ext.R4 as evidence. It may also be noticed that Ext.R4 has not been proved or corroborated from the person who had lodged it. Even otherwise also a reading of this document does not, in any manner, establish the case of Insurance Company. The other point raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not at all considered the principles applicable for awarding damages. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others, JT 2007 (2) SC 353. I am unable to persuade myself that the submission made by learned counsel is based on sound reasoning. Obviously, in cases for grant of compensation the Court has to consider various factors. In the present case, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after considering the entirety of the matter held that in no case compensation could be below Rs. 50,000/- as otherwise awardable for no fault liability. The learned Court, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- which of course included all the components of damages. It cannot be described as excess in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, this submission is also without any merit and is accordingly rejected. This appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 4 Cross-Objections These cross objections have been preferred by the claimants on the ground that compensation requires to be enhanced from Rs. 1,10,000/- to Rs. 15 lacs. Learned counsel appearing for claimants has drawn my attention to the evidence on record to show that even if it is held that deceased was not earning any income, in that event also, the quantum of compensation awarded is meagre. I am unable to persuade myself that quantum of compensation awarded is less. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has considered the case law and factors applicable in its entirety. These cross objections are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 8,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge