FAO No.126 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.126 of 1999 DATE OF DECISION: February 21, 2011 MEHRUNISHA ...APPELLANT VERSUS YOUDHBIR SINGH BHADANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MS. AMANDEEP KAUR, ADVOCATE FOR MR. SANDEEP VERMANI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE AND MR. PARDEEP BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the award of dismissal of the petition for compensation. The claimants were parents and the deceased was their 19 year old son. He was said to be employed in M/s Super Auto (India) Ltd. at Faridabad earning `2500/- per month and making a further income of `600/- by some part-time work. The petition was dismissed on the ground that apart from the evidence of the claimants and the production of FIR through the Police Constable attached to the police station in which the case had been registered, there was no proof of the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal made a reference to the fact that the FIR did not contain reference to the name of the driver or registration number of the vehicle and FAO No.126 of 1999 -2- proceeded to dismiss the petition. I will find this to be of no major significance in case where there had been an identity of the car through the manufacturer and the colour and the driver himself did not come to the Court to deny the accident. 2. I find from the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 that there was no denial of the accident at all. On the other hand, the contention was that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligence of the deceased. The insurance company denied the accident and I will not allow this contention to be urged in the absence of any plea by the insurer that there had been collusion between the claimants and the driver and owner and hence the alleged non-denial could not have been taken as proof of involvement of the insured's vehicle. If respondents No.1 and 2 did not deny the accident, then the fact that he died in a motor accident ought to be taken only as resultant to the negligent driving of a driver of Maruti car said to have been involved in the accident. I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the insured's vehicle was responsible for the accident. 3. As regards the claim, the deceased was said to be earning `2000/- that included `800/- for part-time work. I will take the income of the deceased at `1200/- through his principal employment in M/s Super Auto (India) Ltd. as established, provide for a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses and take the contribution to the family at `7200/-, adopt a multiplier of 15 to determine the loss of dependency at `1,08,000/-. I will make further provision for the conventional heads of claim for loss to estate, funeral expenses and loss of their only son to further amount of compensation totalling `1,20,000/-. FAO No.126 of 1999 -3- 4. 60% of the amount of compensation shall be payable to the mother and the remaining 40% shall be distributed amongst the legal representatives of the deceased father, who was one of the claimants and had died during the pendency of the appeal. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. February 21, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE