FAO No. 2356 of 1997 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2356 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.4.2010 Oriental Insurance Company ..... Appellant vs Gusai Ram and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The Insurance company is in appeal before this Court challenging the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon it. Briefly, the facts are that on 30.7.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., Om Parkash was coming to Hisar from Barwala on scooter no. HR-22-3052 and when he reached near Power House, Vikas Nagar Barwala Road, Hisar, a truck bearing registration no. HYW-5902, driven by respondent no. 3, in a rash and negligent manner, came from Hisar side and struck against the scooter. Due to this impact, he sustained multiple injuries and later on died. The petition filed by his parents was allowed by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant and respondent nos. 3 and 4 liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deceased was Rajinder son of Ram Singh and not Om Parkash as has been proved by RW2 Lovkesh Kumar. As the identity of the deceased is in dispute, grant of compensation to respondents no. 1 and 2 by the learned Tribunal is not justified. The deceased was of notorious character and the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding his contribution towards his parents at Rs. 600/- per month is also wrong and deserve rejection because a person of notorious character could not contribute towards himself what to talk of his parents. It was further submitted that it was a case of contributory negligence and the appellant be absolved from the liability to satisfy the award. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. It is disputed by the learned counsel that identity of the deceased is not clear. In the said accident, deceased was Om Parkash and not Rajinder son of Ram Singh and it has not been proved by RW2 Lovkesh Kumar. Rather it was FAO No. 2356 of 1997 -2- later on that RW2 Lovkesh Kumar, who was the landlord of the deceased Om Parkash, came to know about his real identity as the deceased was residing under his tenancy in the name of Rajinder. It has also come in the evidence that as per affidavit, Ex. R3, which was recovered from the dicky of the scooter of the deceased, one Ashok Kumar son of Lila Ram had sold the scooter to Rajinder son of Ram Singh and due to this reason the police had recorded the name of the deceased as Rajinder son of Ram Singh. The identity of the deceased Om Parkash was cleared during investigation. Moreover, if the insurance company at that time had doubted the identity of the deceased, he can very well examine Ram Singh father of Rajinder or persons from the locality. But the insurance company had not done so and therefore, it cannot be said that the identity of the deceased is not proved by the claimants. In so far as the contribution of the deceased towards his parents is concerned, the learned Tribunal has just taken it as Rs. 600/- per month which any person can contribute towards his old parents. It cannot be said that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is not just and fair. To prove the issue of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the witness produced by the claimants, PW2 Devat Ram has categorically stated that the scooterist was coming on his left side with a moderate speed whereas the driver of the truck was coming at a high speed. It is not the case of either of the parties that the said witness had any grudge against the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover, the driver of the truck has not put his stand by appearing in the witness-box for the reasons best known to him. In the absence of the testimony of the driver of the truck and presence of evidence in the form of statement of PW2 Devat Ram, it cannot be said that it is a case of contributory negligence. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. 30.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge