FAO No. 4828 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4828 of 2011 Date of decision 1.8.2011 Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Appellant Palwal, v. Anita & Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Advocate for the appellant .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J(Oral) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Award dated 10.5.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, (for short the Tribunal). Brief facts of the case are that on 1.5.2000, Sumer Singh, an eye witness to the accident, was going from his shop to village Devli on his motor cycle. Bunti @ Dhuli Chand (since deceased) was going ahead to him, on his motor cycle. When they reached Ballabgarh side near Palwal, (Delhi-Mathura G.T.Road),a tractor carrying water tanker, bearing registration No.HR-30D-4447, (offending vehicle)driven by Surerh,driver in a rash and negligent manner, going ahead of them, suddenly turned left, without giving any indicator and hit Bunty @ Dhuli Chand. Both the occupants of the motor cycles fell down and received injuries. Bunty was shifted to Om Hospital, Palwal. Suresh, driver of the offending vehicle fled from the hospital. Bunty succumbed to his injuries on the same day, in the hospital. FIR No. 176 dated 1.5.2008 was registered at Police Station, City Palwal. FAO No. 4828 of 2011 2 The claimants, i.e. wife, mother, father, and minor brother of deceased, have claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents alleging that the deceased was running a dairy farm, besides doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.8,000/-p.m. In the written statement filed by respondent No.1, the alleged accident was denied. Respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement and took the stand that respondent No.1 was not the employee/driver with him and that a false FIR was lodged by the claimants in collusion with the police. The Tribunal considered the evidence produced on record and examined the witnesses. PW1 Anita, wife of deceased tendered in evidence, affidavit Ex.PW1/A, stating that deceased was earning Rs.8000/-p.m. but no evidence has been led by the claimants to substantiate their claim to this effect. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.3600/-p.m. The claim petition of the father was dismissed as he failed to prove his dependency. The dependency was assessed at Rs. 2400/- p.m. and a the multiplier of 18 was applied. As per the post mortem report Ex.P1, the age of the deceased was 25 years. PW3 Sumer Singh, an eye-witness to the accident, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW3/A, stating that the accident was caused by respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. This witness was cross-examined at length, but his testimony could not be shattered. The driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness box to rebut the evidence of the claimants. FIR No. 141 dated 1.5.2008, was registered against respondent No.1 for causing death by rash and negligent driving. The respondent No.2, produced Secretary, Municipal Committee, Palwal, who filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A, to FAO No. 4828 of 2011 3 state that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. But this witness was neither posted at the relevant time in the Municipality nor he had any personal knowledge in this regard. Therefore, the affidavit filed by him was not relied. The Tribunal held that Bunty @ Dhulli Chand died in road accident caused by respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being the owner of said vehicle, both of them were held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. The Ld.Tribunal, after examining the claim of the claimants in the light of the law laid down in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 S.C.C.121, has rightly awarded the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,19,300/- to the claimants- widow, mother and minor brother of the deceased. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in Award dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed in limine. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 1.8.2011 JUDGE ms