F.A.O. No. 1499 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1499 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 19th ,2011 Rajender and another .... Appellants Versus Dalip Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, "the Tribunal") on the death of their son, Aman. Aman died on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident on 13.8.2009. He was of the age of 5 years and was a student, who was returning from the school in bus bearing registration No. HR-61-4719 of Adarsh High School, respondent No.2, driven by Dalip Singh, respondent No.1. When Aman was alighting from the bus, respondent No.1 moved the F.A.O. No. 1499 of 2011 2 .. bus without caring for the children who were alighting from the bus. As Aman was in the process of getting down the bus, he fell down on the sudden movement of the bus and came under the wheel of the bus. He died at the spot. Respondent No.1 sped away from the spot without caring to render any help to the child. A case bearing FIR No. 272 was registered against respondent No.1 on 13.8.2009 for an offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. A sum of ` 5,00,000/- is claimed as compensation on the death of Aman by the claimants, who are his parents. On notice, the respondents resisted the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement taking various objections relating to locus-standi, cause of action, estoppel etc. They have denied the very accident to have occurred, as alleged by the claimants. It is claimed that a false case was registered against respondent No.1 with the police. Respondent No.3, the insurance company had claimed that the petitioners have filed the petition in connivance with respondents No.1 and 2. It is pleaded that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. The involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident is denied. The very accident is denied to have occurred. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1.Whether accident took place on 13.8.2009, due to F.A.O. No. 1499 of 2011 3 .. the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 driver of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-16-4719 resulting into the death of Aman? OPP 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and from whom and to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle in question in contravention of insurance policy, at the time of alleged accident?OPR3 4.Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 2,50,000/- to the claimants vide the award dated 9.8.2010. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Rose Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent no. 3, and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased had been the only son of the appellants. According to him, Smt. Sarla, appellant No.2, mother of the deceased, had undergone tubectomy after his birth and there is no possibility of her giving birth to another child. He has submitted that the death was also in such circumstances that it caused a lot of pain to the appellants. He has submitted that for F.A.O. No. 1499 of 2011 4 .. these reasons, the compensation in a sum of ` 2,50,000/- is not adequate. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the compensation awarded is more than adequate. According to her, the number of children have now been restricted to one or two and for the reasons given by learned counsel for the appellants, no enhancement in the compensation could be justified. She has, moreover, submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that Aman was the only child of the appellants and that his mother had undergone tubectomy after his death. She has, thus, submitted that there is no ground for enhancement of the compensation. It is true that no documentary evidence had been led to prove that Aman was the only son of the appellants and that his mother had undergone tubectomy after his birth. However, this fact was stated by Rajinder Kumar, appellant No.1 and his statement on oath in this regard was not challenged in his cross- examination. This evidence is, therefore, sufficient to prove the two facts and no documentary evidence was required to prove the same. The loss is more poignant and heart rending when the death is of the only son and at this tender age. The deceased was crushed under the wheel of the bus and for the facts that he was the only son of the parents and that his mother had undergone tubectomy, an operation of family planning, the appellants are entitled to enhancement in compensation, F.A.O. No. 1499 of 2011 5 .. though in a marginal way. In these circumstances, I find that the compensation assessed by learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by a sum of ` 50,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from ` 2,50,000/- to ` 3,00,000/-, which shall be payable to the claimants as per the terms as to apportionment and interest as per the impugned award. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 19th, 2011 som