FAO No.4615 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CM No.24194-CII of 2008 & FAO No.4615 of 2008(O&M) Smt.Suman @ Suman Lata and others ... Appellants VERSUS Rambir and another ... Respondents and FAO No.5432 of 2008(O&M) Yatinder ... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Suman @ Suman Lata and others ... Respondents Decided on : September 25, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants (Respondents No.1 to 4 in FAO No.5432 of 2008). Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2. (appellant in FAO No.5432 of 2008) A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO Nos.4615 and 5432 of 2008, both challenging the award dated 20.3.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby, the claimants (appellants in FAO No.4615 of 2008) were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,92,000/- against the respondents i.e. driver and owner of the FAO No.4615 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] offending vehicle. The appeals having been filed beyond the prescribed limitation, has been accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 111 days. The only ground put forward is that the claimants were under the impression that the appeal in the High Court is to be made after receipt of the award amount and they came to know about the limitation only when they contacted their lawyer. The plea set up by the claimants is not believable as they had been regularly contacting their counsel in connection with the execution of the award after its pronouncement. Otherwise also, it is a settled principle of law that the ignorance of law is no defence. Hence, no ground is made out to condone the delay. Even otherwise, perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the age, income and loss of dependency and after deducting 1/3rd as self-dependancy, quantified the annual loss to the tune of Rs.24,000/-. After applying the suitable multiplier in the given circumstances of the case, the total dependency was assessed at Rs.3,84,000/-. Besides, Rs.7000/- on account of cremation expenses and Rs.9000/- as consortium were also awarded. So far as the medical expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased, the Tribunal after taking note of the medical evidence and the bills, placed on record, assessed it at Rs.3,92,000/- and thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.7,92,000/- on account of compensation to the appellants, which appears to be just and adequate. Now, coming to the contention of the counsel for the owner of FAO No.4615 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] the offending vehicle (appellant in FAO No.5432 of 2008) that he is not liable to pay the compensation, it is noticed that as the deceased was travelling by the offending vehicle, when he died on account of the fault on the part of respondent No.1. In the circumstances, respondent No.2 / owner of the offending vehicle is certainly vicariously liable for the fault of respondent No.1. In view of the above, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the claimants (FAO No.4615 of 2008) as also both the appeals are dismissed. September 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE