IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. FAO(MVA) No.79 of 2005 Date of Decision : March 4, 2009 Union of India …Appellant. Versus: Sohan Singh Bhamrah …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral) The present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned Award dated 27.5.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, H. P. in M.A.C.T Petition No. 11 of 2001 titled as Sohan Singh vs. Union of India, awarding a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of petition upto the date of payment. The challenge in the present appeal is limited only to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Undisputed facts are that on 31.7.1993, deceased Yash Pal Singh, who was driving Motorcycle, while crossing the Railway crossing near Gate No. 60 BKM 440, Suranussi, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Jalandhar, was hit by the Railway Engine and died in the said accident. The claimant being father filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5 lacs. The petition was opposed inter alia on the ground that the petition was not maintainable as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction and also that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the death of Jaspal Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Railway Engine by its driver? …..OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? ….OPP 3. Whether this tribunal has no jurisdiction? …… OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? …….OPR. 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? ………OPR. 6. Whether the petition is estopped from filing the petition? ….OPR 7. Whether the petition is time barred? …OPR Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. 3 Based on the material on record (oral and documentary), the Tribunal decided issue No.1 by holding that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Railway Engine the accident occurred at the Railway Crossing in which the deceased Shri Yash Pal Singh died. Based on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad(D) and others {AIR 2002 SC 1301}, the Tribunal held that it had the jurisdiction to try the petition. The deceased, who was 25 years of age was proved to have registered as Govt. Contractor with the CPWD, Jalandhar and taking into account his income to be Rs.150/- per day, the monthly income for the purposes of dependency was taken to be Rs.3,000/- and by applying a multiplier of 10, for the reasons that the claimant himself was 60 years of age, a total sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was determined as compensation for loss of dependency. Rs.5000/- was also awarded in lump sum as conventional charges. Thus, a total sum of Rs.3,65,000/- was awarded to the claimant. Issue No.2 was decided accordingly. Issues No. 4, 5, 6 & 7 were decided in favour of the claimants. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding the compensation on the higher side. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the award for the reasons set out therein. 4 The fact that the deceased was 25 years of age as on the date of accident is seriously not disputed, it is also evident from the post mortem report Ext. P-1 and the statement of the claimant, father of the deceased (PW-1). That the deceased was registered as Contractor with the CPWD stands proved by Shri Kamal Singh (PW-6), who has categorically deposed that the deceased was registered as CPWD Contractor in terms of registration certificate proved on record. From Mark ‘X’ written by the Executive Engineer, Central Division, CPWD, Jalandhar addressed to Shri Sohan Singh, it is evident that the deceased was registered as a Govt. Contractor. Therefore, that the deceased was gainfully employed as on the date of accident stands sufficiently proved on record. No doubt, with regard to exact income there is no documentary proof but, however, PW-2 has categorically deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Apex Court in V. Subbulakshmi & Ors. vs. S. Lakshmi & Anr. {AIR 2008 SC 1256}, has held that even where there is no documentary evidence, some guess work is permissible. Be that as it may be, for the purposes of computing income the Tribunal has taken the deceased to be a skilled labourer and thus determined his income to be Rs.150/- per day i.e. 4500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd, income for the purposes of loss of dependency was determined to be Rs.3000/-. There is material on record to prove the same. The multiplier of 5 10 adopted by the tribunal is just, fair and reasonable keeping in view the age of the deceased as also the age of the claimant being 50 years as on the date of the accident. The findings and reasonings adopted by the Tribunal are borne out from the record. There is nothing perverse or illegal about the same. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 4, 2009. (rana)