FAO No.5169 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5169 of 2010 Date of Decision : 28.01.2011 Smt. Asha and others .......Appellants Versus Har Dayal and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S R Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the impugned award dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Rohtak. 2. In short, the facts are that on 12.03.2009, Suresh, since deceased, was going on his motorcycle bearing No.HR-12-G-8526. He was following by his brother Jaswant Singh and one Kitab Singh. When they reached in the area of Village Chirri, a offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR61-8420 (hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven in a negligent and zigzag manner at a fast speed, came from Gohana side. It struck into the motorcycle of 1 FAO No.5169 of 2010 Suresh. On account of the impact, Suresh fell down from his motorcycle and sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted to PGIMS Rohtak, but unfortunately, succumbed to his injuries on 13.03.2009. Asha, the widow, Smt. Chandro Devi, the mother, Amit and Sumeet, minor sons of Late Suresh, filed claim petition alleging that the accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of Har Dayal Singh, driver of the offending vehicle. One Jaswant Singh reported the accident to the Police. FIR No.59 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle on 13.03.2009, under Sections 279/304A IPC. It is alleged that the deceased, at the time of the accident was aged 35 years and doing the work of farming and running a dairy. 3. The owner and driver contested the claim that it was the deceased who was at fault and was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently. He came on wrong side of the road and struck his motorcycle into the offending vehicle. It is alleged that the FIR was false. 4. The national Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Travera bearing registration No.HR61-8130 by the respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2 FAO No.5169 of 2010 2. Whether Suresh son of Giani Ram died due to the injuries sustained by him and if so, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding an effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so, its effect? OPR3 4. Relief. 6. While deciding Issue No.1, the learned Tribunal held that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by Har Dayal Singh, the driver. On issue No.2, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 5,64,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a. holding the respondents jointly and severally to pay the said compensation. While deciding issue No.3, the learned Tribunal held that the driving licence, Ex.R2, proves that it was valid on the date of the accident. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation. On the other hand, the counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation is correct. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award with their able assistance. 9. I have re-scanned the impugned award and find no ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal except under the head ‘consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’. Keeping in 3 FAO No.5169 of 2010 view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be fully met with if an amount of ` 20,000/- is awarded on account of consortium and ` 10,000/- as funeral and last rites expenses. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and a sum of ` 30,000/- is enhanced under the aforementioned heads over and above the amount already awarded which is payable by the Insurance Company. The rate of interest shall remain the same. This amount, if so deposited by the Insurance Company, shall be disbursed in the manner recorded by the learned Tribunal amongst the claimants. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 28.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4