FAO No. 166 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.1.2010 (1) FAO No. 166 of 2010 (O&M) Oriental Insurance Company .. Appellant vs. Navneet Kumar and others .. Respondents (2) FAO No. 167 of 2010 (O&M) Oriental Insurance Company .. Appellant vs. Smt. Rati Ratti and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, bearing FAO Nos. 166 and 167 of 2010, as the same arise out of a common award dated 6.8.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, `the Tribunal'), as a result of motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.2.2007. In FAO No. 166 of 2010, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 1,00,952/- as compensation to the claimant on account of multiple injuries suffered by him, whereas in FAO No. 167 of 2010, Ram Ratti and others have been awarded compensation of Rs. 7,30,000/- on account of death of their young son. Briefly, the facts, as have been noticed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award are that on 24.2.2007, Navneet Kumar-claimant along with Sukhvinder Singh (deceased), Devinder Singh and Mahipal was coming to Karnal in a three wheeler, which was being driven by Mahipal at FAO No. 166 of 2010 [2] a moderate speed on the left side of the road. When the three wheeler reached one kilometer ahead of Goghripur Bus stand, then all of a sudden, a truck bearing no. HR-58A-0679, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the three wheeler by coming on the wrong side of the road. Due to the accident, Navneet Kumar and Devinder Singh received injuries and Sukhvinder Singh expired. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to challenge the award of the Tribunal on the ground of contributory negligence. It was submitted that as the three wheeler, in which the injured and the deceased were sitting, was equally negligent when the accident occurred, the burden of entire compensation cannot be put on the appellant and the findings of the learned Tribunal on that account deserve to be set aside. The argument was sought to be justified by raising the plea that it was a head on collision between the three wheeler and the truck, in which one party cannot be said to be solely negligent. However, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In fact, filing of appeal on the ground sought to be raised by the appellant in the absence of any material on record to support the same is totally misconceived. It is an accident, in which two persons were injured and one expired. The case set up by the claimants was that they were travelling in a three wheeler, which was being driven by Nahipal at a moderate speed on left side of the road, when the offending truck, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the three wheeler by coming on wrong side of the road. As two of the claimants had suffered injuries and were self-sufferers of the accident, their testimony certainly carried weight. Navneet Kumar, who appeared as a witness, had categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The same version was supported by the other witnesses. No evidence was led by the appellant or the owner and driver of the vehicle, which could dislodge the testimony of the claimants. It is not that the story about negligence of the driver of the truck was put before the Tribunal for the first time during the proceedings in the claim petitions, rather, the same version was given in the FIR, which was got registered immediately after the accident. After investigation, challan had also been presented against the driver of the truck. When the finding of negligence of FAO No. 166 of 2010 [3] the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant has been recorded in the light of the material, as referred to above, in my opinion, no illegality can be found therein. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Considering the fact that the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals which, on the face of it, did not have any merit, in my opinion, it deserves to be burdened with costs. The same is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- each in both the appeals. The amount of costs shall be deposited by the appellant with the District Legal Services Committee, Karnal on or before 31.3.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.1.2010 mk