FAO No.1277 of 1994(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1277 of 1994(O&M) Date of Decision 26.11.2009 Oriental Insurance Company ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Shanti Devi and others ...... Respondents FAO No.2260 of 1994(O&M) Date of Decision 26.11.2009 Smt.Shanti Devi and others ...... Appellants VERSUS Partap Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate, for Mr.Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the claimants-appellants. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This judgment of mine shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals i.e. FAO Nos.1277 and 2260 of 1994 one filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') and the other filed by the appellants-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants'). Both the appeals having arisen out of the same award are decided together. In nutshell the facts are that on 22.10.1992, Shamsher (since deceased) while riding on his cycle alongwith Ram Niwas and Ranvir Singh was proceeding from Dadri to their village Ghasola. When they had just covered three furlongs towards Mahendergarh, then Partap Singh respondent No.5-driver, while driving the offending truck bearing registration No.HYD-3066 rashly and negligently came from the opposite FAO No.1277 of 1994(O&M) 2 side and struck against the cycle of Shamsher Singh. Resultantly, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Smelling negligence of respondent No.5, the FIR No.384 was got registered by Ranvir Singh in Police Station Sadar, Dadri. The claimants preferred the claim petition. The appellant is the insurer of the offending truck owned by respondent No.6 Mange Ram. The claim petition was contested by the respondents including the appellant. They controverted all the allegations and further asserted that the truck bearing registration No. HYD-3066 was never involved in the alleged accident. FIR is the result of collusion between the claimants and the police officials. Respondent No.3 further urged that no such accident had taken place and respondent No.5 was not the driver of the truck in question and he was not holding a valid driving licence. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HYD-3066 by respondent No.1 and Shamsher Singh died ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. Ultimately, the claim petition was accepted and compensation to the tune of Rs.56,000/- in lump-sum was awarded in favour of the claimants and against the appellant and respondents No.5 and 6 jointly and severally. First of all, coming to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, it was urged that it is a stage managed story. Partap Singh did not cause the accident and he was falsely involved in the case lateron. None of the witness was present at the spot. Having heard the rival contentions, the accident appears to have been duly proved by the claimants Ram Niwas PW-2 being the eye- witness has given the details of the occurrence stating that when they reached near bye-pass of Bhiwani then respondent No.5 while driving the truck bearing registration No.HYD-3066 rashly and negligently, came from Mahendergarh side, and struck against the bicycle of Shamsher Singh. FAO No.1277 of 1994(O&M) 3 Ranbir Singh had lodged the FIR. He categorically stated that he knew Partap Singh-driver of the offending truck as he is resident of Dadri. During the cross-examination, he stated that he had seen the driver when immediately after the accident he had slowed down the truck. He has also categorically asserted that he was present at the spot alongwith Ranvir Singh. To the contrary, Partap Singh while appearing in the witness box as RW1 has stated that he did not cause any accident. His explanation is that on the day of accident, he alongwith his conductor Kalia were coming from Jaipur. When at 12:00 midnight, they had reached Dadri, at 8:00 a.m. they got the entry with regard to the passing of the truck, but surprisingly, the respondent has failed to lead any evidence in order to rebut and contradict the evidence of Ram Niwas. Had he actually not committed the accident and he was away and coming from Jaipur then he would have proved the same by documentary evidence i.e. entry relating to the goods which he had taken away. None of the persons to whom he had delivered the goods and from the barriers which he crossed has been examined. Thus, evidence led by the claimants would be treated as unrebutted. There is a direct evidence of Ram Niwa-PW2 regarding the identity of Partap Singh. FIR was also recorded in this regard. The investigation carried out by the police is of no help to the respondents because Partap Singh while appearing as RW1 admitted that he was on the steering wheel of the truck on the day of accident. Thus, the plea set up by the appellant that he was on leave on that day stands falsified. Now coming to the next argument regarding the quantum of compensation regarding which the claimants have also filed the appeal. The cause advanced by the appellant is that compensation has been exaggerated whereas the claimants have sought enhancement therein. The deceased was born on 02.02.1937, therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 22.10.1992, he was 57 years and 8 months. He was to retire on 28.02.1995. He was a school teacher drawing a salary of Rs.4153/-. Thus, taking his monthly income @ Rs.4,000/- and after making usual deduction of 1/3rd which he has been contributing towards himself, the net dependency comes to Rs.2700/-. As regards the multiplier, it has been observed in the judgment of Apex Court delivered in case Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77 that FAO No.1277 of 1994(O&M) 4 in case the person dies at the age of 57 then the multiplier of 9 should be applied. As such, while applying the multiplier of 9, the claimants become entitled to Rs.2,91,600/- while adding a sum of Rs.8400/- on account of last rites, funeral expenses, transportation expenses and consortium, the claimants become entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation. Resultantly, while affirming the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1, the appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed whereas the appeal of the claimants is partly accepted. The impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.2,44,000/- over and above the award amount. However, the claimants would be entitled to receive the interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization. The remaining terms of the award passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. No order as to costs. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 26.11.2009 mamta-II