In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.5508 of 2009 Date of decision: November 19, 2009 Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Sapna and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal for setting aside the award dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.6,19,000/- in favour of the claimants- respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant as well as respondents No.5 and 7 jointly and severally. The factual matrix of the case is that on 27.12.2003, Dharminder Pal @ Happy was going from his STD Booth, opposite Pappu Dhaba, Rajpura to his village Khanpur on his motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-11U-8245 and Vijay Kumar was the pillion rider. At about 7.00 p.m. when he was crossing the Motel Chowk, G.T. Road, Rajpura, in the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 (driver) while driving Qualis Car bearing registration No.DL8CF7643 rashly and negligently came from behind and struck against the motor cycle. Dharminder Pal @ Happy died at the spot, whereas, Vijay Kumar sustained multiple injuries. Hence this claim petition was filed. The respondents contested the claim petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether on 27.12.2003, the respondent No.1 by driving the Qualis Car bearing No.DL-9CF-7643 rashly and negligently caused the death of Dharminder Pal @ Happy near Eagle Motel Chowk, G.T. Road, Rajpura as alleged?OPP F.A.O. No.5508 of 2009 -2- *** 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the driver of Qualis Car bearing No. DL- 8CF7643 was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of said accident as alleged?OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPR 5. Relief Both the parties led evidence and ultimately the claim petition was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no accident had taken place as alleged in the claim petition. He has referred to the statement of Dr. Sarbjit Singh (RW-2) Medical Officer, Simrata Nursing Home, who deposed that as per record, both the injured were brought to his hospital on 27.12.2003 at about 8.20 p.m with the history of “RTA (Road traffic Accident) near Pappu Dhaba”. Having examined the aforesaid contention, it may be observed that Om Parkash (PW3), an eye witness of the occurrence, has testified that on 27.12.2003 Dharaminder Pal was driving the motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-11U-8245 and Vijay Kumar was sitting on the pillion. The respondent No.1 while driving the offending car rashly and negligently struck against the motor cycle from behind. Thereafter, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away after leaving the vehicle at the spot. He had reported the matter to the police and FIR No.338 dated 27.12.2003 was registered against the driver of the offending car. Vijay Kumar (PW2) injured in the case also deposed on the same lines. As such, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the respondent No.1 caused the accident while driving Qualis in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel for the appellant has further aragued that the Tribunal fell in error while assessing the income of the deceased @ F.A.O. No.5508 of 2009 -3- *** Rs.4500/- per month and applying the multiplier on the higher side. Having pondered over the argument, it may be observed that the deceased was running STD booth besides doing diary business. Sukhjinder Singh (PW5) has categorically testified that the deceased was having buffalos and cows and he used to purchase milk from him. He has not disclosed the exact income of the deceased from the side business of diary farm, as such, the Tribunal has righty assessed Rs.500/- per month from the side business. Consequently, the net income the deceased was assessed at Rs.4500/- per month. The deceased was about 20 years of age at the time of accident. The Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Delhi and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, observed that if a person dies at such age, then the multiplier of 17 should be applied. As such, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 in this case. The Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. November 19, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge