FAO No2042 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No2042 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.01.2010 Sukhbir Singh ..Appellant Vs. Tahal Singh & Ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.M.B.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This appeal by the claimant/appellant is directed against the award dated 7.12.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra,(for short the Tribunal) vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants was accepted and a sum of Rs.2 lacs (Rupees two lacs only) was awarded as compensation. The compensation was directed to be paid jointly and severally by the driver, owner, and the Insurance Company along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. FAO No2042 of 2009 2 With the consent of the parties the appeal is taken up for final disposal. Brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are that on 19.5.2006 Virsa Singh deceased and his son Major Singh and Pragat Singh were standing at bus shelter at village Karah Sahib toward the side of village which leads to Cheeka. At about 3 PM a school bus bearing No.HR- 64-0546 came from Pehowa side which was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Offending bus struck against Virsa Singh after coming on kacha portion of the road. As a result thereof, he fell down and was crushed by the rear wheel of the bus. After the accident, respondent No.1 ran away from the spot. It was, thus, claimed that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. A criminal case was also registered against respondent No.1 vide FIR No.210 dated 19.5.2006 under sections 279/304-A IPC at Police Station Pehowa. Claim petition was contested by the respondent No.1 to 3 i.e. driver and the owner of the offending vehicle by taking preliminary objection that the claim petition was not maintainable as there was no fault of respondent No.1 in causing the accident. Accident was said to be caused due to negligence of the deceased himself as he was crossing the road without observing the rules of the road and without seeing the oncoming traffic. Vehicle was insured with respondent No.4, therefore, it was claimed that the compensation was to be paid by respondent no.4. On merit, averments made in the claim petition were denied. Respondent No.2 filed separate written statement by taking a plea that he sold the vehicle to Rop Lal, Manager of Tagore Public School, FAO No2042 of 2009 3 Kaithal much prior to the accident. The petition was, therefore, said to be bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Insurance company, respondent No.4 also contested the claim by raising preliminary objection and pleading that the claim petition was collusive to grab the compensation from the Insurance Company. Violation of the terms of the insurance policy were also pleaded. Stand was further taken that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. Quantum of compensation was also challenged. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues on the pleading of the parties:- 1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Virsa Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HR-64-0546 by its driver Tahal Singh, respondent No.1.? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the claimants collusion with respondent No.1 and 3? OPR 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident? OPR 5. Relief. Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together and on appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was FAO No2042 of 2009 4 caused on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving Bis No.HR-64-0546. On quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal found that the deceased was aged 50 years of age though it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month. No proof of income was placed on record. The income was taken to be Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) per annum, out of which 50 per cent was deducted on account of self dependency and remaining 50 per cent income was taken to be a loss of dependency which came to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per annum. Multiplier of thirteen was applied in view of the age of the deceased. The compensation payable was assessed at Rs.1,95000/- (Rupees one lac ninety five thousand only). Appellant was also held entitled to Rs.4500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) towards funeral expenses. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,99,500/- (1,95,000 + 4500/-) was rounded up to Rs.2 lacs, and award passed accordingly. The learned Tribunal held that Major Singh and Jasbir Singh claimants were earning independently and were not dependent on the deceased. The appellant who was 20 years of age, was held to be dependent on the deceased. It was ordered that compensation assessed be paid to the appellant alone. As already observed above, the appellant was also held entitled to interest. Issue No.3 was decided against the respondents as they failed to lead any evidence in support of this issue. Similarly, issue No.4 was also decided against the respondents as copy of driving licence was produced on FAO No2042 of 2009 5 record, though it was marked. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly rejected the income for the deceased as claimed though it was proved that the deceased was earning from agriculture as well as from the shop of motor mechanic. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that dependancy was wrongly placed of 50 per cent only and not 75 per cent. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once no evidence was led by the appellant in proof of income of Virsa Singh who was aged 50 years, the learned Tribunal was required to fix the income on guess work, as done in this case. No fault can be found with the fixation of dependancy of 50 per cent as other sons of Virsa Singh were earning. It was a case of two units i.e the deceased and the appellant. Fixing of 50 percent of dependency, therefore, cannot be said to be wrong. No fault, therefore, can be found with the compensation awarded to the appellant. This appeal being without any merit is ordered to be dismissed in limine. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 27.01.2010 Judge rp