FAO NO. 4457 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4457 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision 27.7.2011 Baldev Singh Appellant v. Inderjit Kaur & Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. L.M.Gulati,Advocate for the appellant .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J(Oral) C.M.No.16420-CII of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Delay of 17 days in refiling the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal 1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Award dated 19.1.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Fast Track Court, Amritsar (for short the Tribunal). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.2008,deceased Ranjit Singh,driver, alongwith Charan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Daya Singh, residents of village Khalsa Nagar, Taran Tarn Road,Amritsar, were going in a Jeep bearing registration No. UP07B-6065 to collect donations for Gurudwara Baba Jiwan Singh. When they reached near B.Ed College, Village Khairon Main Road, a truck bearing registration No. PB08-AA- 02586 (offending truck) driven by Sukhwinder Singh, in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit against the jeep. As a result thereof, all the occupants of the jeep sustained serious multiple injuries. FAO NO. 4457 of 2011 2 Ranjit Singh and Daya Singh died on the spot. An FIR No. 10 dated 11.12008, under sections 304-A, 337,338 and 279 IPC was registered at Police Post Kairon, Police Station, Patti. 3. As per the claimants, the deceased Ranjit Singh was employed as a driver with Kuldeep Singh and was getting a salary of Rs. 6000/-p.m. He was 32 years of age at the time of death, and was the only bread-winner of the family consisting of six members i.e. his wife and four minor children. The claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 20 lacs on account of his death, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending truck. 4. On notice, respondents No. 1 & 2 contested the claim petition and filed written statement. They denied the claim raised by the claimants. On merit, it was stated that no such accident took place and the truck bearing registration No. PB08-AA-2586 was not involved in any accident. The FIR lodged was false and frivolous and that that the driver of the jeep died due to his own fault, while driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner. 5. In view of the statement of Baldev Singh, respondent No.2, owner of the offending truck regarding the factum of accident, the Ld. Tribunal observed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver (respondent No.1) of offending truck. The Ld.Tribunal did not believe the version put forth by this witness with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the driver-respondent No.1. 6. From the perusal of the Award and the record adduced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clearly established that an FIR was promptly lodged. Sukhwinder Singh, driver of the offending truck is FAO NO. 4457 of 2011 3 still facing the criminal trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patti. He did not step into the witness box to deny the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has not referred to any evidence or document on record, which was not considered by the Ld. Tribunal or any material not relevant, was considered by the Tribunal while passing the Award. Therefore, this Court feels that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. There is no material before this Court to take a contrary view than the one taken by the Ld. Tribunal. 7. As per the Post Mortem Report, Ex.PW1/B, produced and proved by the claimants, the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 2000/-p.m. ( Rs. 24,000 per annum). The Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 in the present case and calculated the total amount of compensation at Rs. 3,67,000/-. The appellant has rightly been fastened with responsibility to indemnify the award alongwith the driver. 8. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the Award dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal of appellant-owner fails and is dismissed in limine. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 27.7.2011 ms