F.A.O. No. 4173 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4173 of 2009 Date of decision: 14-12-2009 Mahender Singh and another .........Appellants Vs Jagdish and others .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the appellants Shri R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate, for insurance company HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed by Mahender Singh as well as his wife Bimla Devi against the award dated 6.3.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak whereby he awarded an amount of Rs. 3,21,500/- in their favour in claim petition No. 141 of 2007 bearing caption Mahender Singh Versus Jagdish and others. The brief facts are that on 21.4.2007 Ram Narain alongwith Darshan Singh started his journey while driving his motorcycle A/F( applied for) alongwith two empty milk drums loaded thereon to bring milk from Rohtak. Darshan Singh was on the pillion rider. The motorcycle was being driven at a slow speed cautiously and by observing the traffic rules. When they reached near Indus Public School, on National Highway No.10, Delhi- Rohtak Road at about 5.30 p.m., meanwhile, a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-46b-7344 driven by Jagdish respondent rashly and negligently at a high speed came from Rohtak and by going on its wrong side rammed into the motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the motorcycle riders fell on the F.A.O. No. 4173 of 2009 2 road and sustained multiple grievous injuries on their respective persons. Ram Narain noted down the number of the vehicle. After causing the accident the driver of the offending vehicle sped away. In their joint written statement, the respondents Jagdish driver and Santosh owner of the offending vehicle came up with the plea that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by Ram Narain and false criminal case was got registered by him and relatives of the deceased Darshan Singh. The respondent insurance company in its written statement has inter alia pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle had given it to Jagdish respondent, who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and this fact was in the knowledge of the owner of the offending vehicle. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether Darshan Singh and Ram Narayan petitioner sustained injuries in a roadside accident which took place on 21.4.2007 in the area of Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, on account of rash or/and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.HR-46B-7344 by respondent No.1 which is owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount as compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the petitions are incomplete, vague and do not disclose any cause of action as alleged?OPR 4. Whether the petitions are bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties?OPR 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was without a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident, as alleged, if so to what effect?OPR 6. Whether the insured has violated the terms and conditions of F.A.O. No. 4173 of 2009 3 the insurance policy, as alleged, if so to what effect?OPR-3 7. Relief. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. On behalf of the appellant, it has been strenuously urged that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 11 considering the age of the deceased Darshan Singh to be 23 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has further erred in considering the age of the appellants to be in the age group of 46-50 years and has also ignored the fact that minor/major brothers and sisters of the deceased who are pursuing their studies were dependent upon the income of the deceased. In view of these facts multiplier of at least 18 should have been applied. It is further argued that in view of the soaring prices at least an amount of Rs.40,000/- on account of funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of estate, should have been awarded. As against this, the learned counsel for the insurance company maintained that multiplier has been rightly applied and furthermore, the amount awarded on account of funeral expenses as also loss of estate call for no interference. I have well considered the rival contentions. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3600/-. The multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is 11. The learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased at 23 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown Photostat copy of the ration card purportedly issued by the Inspector, Food and Supplies, Sampla in January 2000. As per the same Mahender Singh and Bimla appellants were 44 and 36 years of age respectively at the time of issuance of this ration card. Learned Tribunal has held them to be in the age group of 46-50 years. F.A.O. No. 4173 of 2009 4 In view of the fact that multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, an amount of Rs.40,000/- more as compensation is allowed over and above the awarded amount. The respondent-insurance company shall deposit this enhanced amount within 45 days from today, failing which this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per anuum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization. This F.A.O. is disposed of accordingly. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 14, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No