FAO No. 2886 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2886 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.05.2010 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant Versus Bhajan Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) CM No.13700-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed, delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.2886 of 2010 This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 9.1.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondents, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stands allowed. The claimant/respondent, sought compensation on account of death of Karamjit Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 26.7.2007. The pleaded case was, that the deceased along with his son Gurvir Singh was coming back from village Alaundipur to their native village Dhereri Jattan, on a motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing registration No.PB- 12-D-0851, which was being driven by deceased Karamjit Singh himself FAO No. 2886 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and its other occupant Gurvir Singh claimant was sitting on its pillion. When they reached near Gurdwara Sahib of village Seal at about 7.00 p.m., a tractor make Mahindra Arjun bearing chassis No.SRKV 1593 and engine No.SRKV1593, with no registration number came from opposite direction. The tractor was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Charanjit Khan. Although, the motorcyclist Karamjit Singh slowed down his motorcycle seeing the approaching tractor/trolley, the driver of the tractor/trolley while driving the said offending vehicle hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, Karamjit Singh and Gurvir Singh fell down on the road and the tractor dragged the motorcycle to a distance of about 4/5 feet on the road. Head of Karamjit Singh was crushed by the tractor and he died at the spot. Gurvir Singh claimant also suffered injuries in the said accident. It was pleaded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. The age of the deceased was assessed to be 43 years and income at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month, though it was claimed to be Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) per month from agriculture and dairy farming and age 38 years. The claim petition was contested, wherein respondents No.4 and 5 denied the involvement of the tractor/trolley in question in the accident. FIR registered was claimed to be false. The tractor was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company filed a separate written statement, and denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, and further that FAO No. 2886 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased-motorcyclist. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the deceased Karamjit Singh died in the accident caused by the driver of the offending tractor bearing chassis No.SRKV 1593 and engine No.SRKV1593 which was driven rashly and negligently. Issue No.2, onus of which was on the appellant, was not pressed and no evidence was led in support of the plea raised. The claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees seven lac and twenty thousand only). In view of the fact that application moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged, the award on the question of quantum of compensation only. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that no evidence was led to prove the income of the deceased, whereas it was claimed that he was small agriculturist and owned 20 kanals of land. Once, it was proved on record, that the deceased was agriculturist owning 20 kanals of land, there was some truth in the statement of the claimants, that he was running dairy farm also. Their statement was not taken to be gospel truth. But at the same time, income assessed at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month, cannot be said to be excessive as contended. The learned Tribunal rightly imposed a cut of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the proved age of FAO No. 2886 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 43 years of the deceased, multiplier of 15 was applied. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted that the compensation granted is on the higher side. No other ground was pressed. No merit. Dismissed. A sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal, be remitted to the learned Tribunal for payment to the claimants towards discharge of the awarded amount. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 21, 2010 R.S.