FAO No.741 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.741 of 1999 Date of Decision.16.11.2010 Gian Kaur wife of Harbans Singh, resident of Waraichan patti Samana, District Patiala ......Appellant Versus Gurdeep Singh son of Roor Singh resident of Achran Khurd, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala and others ......Respondents Present: Mr.B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.V. S. Kang, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal by the claimant is against a decree of dismissal when the accident and death resulting therefrom were not proved to be the act of the driver of the insured's truck. In the manner of narration of the accident, it was stated that the shaft of the insured's truck gave away when the rear portion of the truck came out of assembly and it dashed against the rear side of the another vehicle coming from the opposite direction and the vehicle capsized when the Cleaner travelling in the truck succumbed to the injuries suffered in FAO No.741 of 1999 -2- the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident could not have been the result of any negligence on the part of the driver. Even if the driver was not negligent, I would take this to be an illustration of res ipsa loquitur situation where the owner must be made liable for the negligence of not keeping the vehicle in a state of proper upkeep and repairs. I cannot take the accident to be a result of any latent defect that could not have been found out by exercise of due diligence, as pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. A vehicle that is properly maintained cannot come by a harm in the manner in which the accident admittedly took place. I will, therefore, hold the owner of the vehicle as responsible for the accident and the claimants are entitled to succeed on this ground. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation, there has been no discussion in the award of the Tribunal but I do not feel it appropriate to remit the matter for fresh consideration having regard to the fact that the accident took place on 17.11.1993 and the claimant had not seen the colour of coin this long when the widow has lost the bread winner of the family. In evidence, she had stated that her husband was earning about Rs.3,000/-. I would take the annual income to be Rs.15,000/-, provide for a deduction of 1/3rd and take the multiplier of 18 for a person who was aged 25 years and take the loss due to dependence at Rs.1,80,000/-. I will add conventional heads of claim towards loss of consortium, loss to estate, loss of love and affection for the child and the funeral expenses to an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- and round of the entitlement of the claimant at FAO No.741 of 1999 -3- Rs.2,00,000/-. This amount shall bear an interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on the insurance company to satisfy the claim. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.50,000/- as amount payable under no fault liability and the amount now awarded in excess alone shall remain payable. 3. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 17, 2010 Pankaj*