F.A.O.No.734 of 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) F.A.O.No.734 of 1992 (O&M) Jiwan Kumar & another .........Appellants Versus Ajit Singh and another ..........Respondents 2) F.A.O.No.739 of 1992 Jiwan Kumar .........Appellant Versus Jaspal Kaur and others ..........Respondents 3) F.A.O.No.740 of 1992 (O&M) Jiwan Kumar .........Appellant Versus Ajit Singh and others ..........Respondents Dated of decision : 29.8.2008 CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr.Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the claimant-respondents. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3 in F.A.O.No.740 of 1992. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Limited. ... F.A.O.No.734 of 1992 (O&M) -2- MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of the three aforesaid appeals filed by the owner, driver and the insurance company in the first instance. However, an application has now been moved by the insurance company in two of the appeals bearing Nos.734 and 740 of 1992 to transpose it as a respondent, whereas learned counsel for the appellant (s) made oral request to transpose the New New India Assurance Company Limited in FAO No.739 of 1992. The prayer is allowed. Memo of Parties be corrected accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the award of the Tribunal granting compensation on account of the death of Devinder Singh Dhaliwal and Satinder Pal Singh and also for the damage to the vehicle is erroneous and liable to be set aside. It was contended that the finding on the issue of negligence as also on the quantum of compensation is not based on any cogent evidence and, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that they have successfully proved before the Tribunal the factum of the accident having been caused due to the negligence of the vehicle of the appellant and therefore there was no reason to interfere with the award. The amount of compensation which had been assessed was also satisfied according to the learned counsel for the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The offending vehicle was a truck bearing No.PNC 4519 F.A.O.No.734 of 1992 (O&M) -3- which is said to have come from the opposite side of the car in which the deceased were travelling. The truck is said to have struck against it resulting in the death of the aforesaid persons. No cogent evidence was adduced by the appellants to offset the evidence which was produced by the claimants. The testimony of AW1 Amarjit Singh and AW2 Ajit Singh has not been shaken or shattered in cross- examination by the appellants who had tried to set up a case that the car had hit the truck from behind while overtaking the truck at a rash speed. No mechanical report has been produced to this effect. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence cannot be held to be perverse. Accordingly, the same is affirmed. In the case of death of Devinder Singh Dhaliwal the claimants are the parents. The deceased was 24 years of age and was working as a mechanic in Norway and was earning an amount of Rs.31,362/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 50% of the income for personal expenses and assessed the dependency at Rs.15,000/-. But relying upon the statement of the father of the deceased the Tribunal assessed the annual dependency at Rs.90,000/-. A multiplier of 5 was applied to come to a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. In the given set of circumstances, the said amount cannot be said to be exorbitant and it can safely be said that it was just and adequate. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is also affirmed. In so far as the amount of compensation in the case of deceased Satinder Pal Singh is concerned, the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-. The claimants in this case are the F.A.O.No.734 of 1992 (O&M) -4- widow and four minor children. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2,000/- per month and deducting Rs.500/- as personal expenses the dependency was worked out to Rs.1,500/- per month or Rs.18,000/- per annum. A multiplier of 14 was applied which cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the compensation awarded to the claimants in the case of deceased Satinder Pal Singh is just and adequate. Consequently, all the three appeals are dismissed. The award of the Tribunal was stayed upto 50%. Let this amount be deposited by the insurance company before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today for onward disbursal to the claimants. 29.8.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss