FAO No.3218 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3218 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Pawan and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Baru Ram and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) The appellants, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor and trolley, have challenged the impugned award whereby compensation of ` 1,43,600/- has been granted to respondents No.1 and 2 on account of death of their son, Amit, who died in an accident caused due to the use of aforesaid offending vehicle. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the offending vehicle and the accident in question are contrary to the evidence on record. He further argued that at the most it was a case of contributory negligence and the appellants could not have been saddled with liability of more than 50% on the principles of contributory negligence. Learned counsel has also argued that compensation has been granted without any evidence with regard to the proof of income and age of the deceased. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. Admittedly, Amit aged 21 was unmarried son of respondents No.1 and 2. His monthly income was assessed at Rs.3,300/- which cannot FAO No.3218 of 2011(O&M) 2 be held to be on the higher side as even the monthly income of a daily wage earner is more than the said amount. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased who was an able bodied person would not have earned that much of amount. Thus, no error can be found in the assessment of compensation. It may also be seen that while allowing compensation against the appellants, the Tribunal has also found that the tractor-trolley was parked in the middle of the road at the time of accident and the tractor driver had ran away with the tractor leaving the trolley behind. Admittedly, the sapurdari of the trolley was also taken by the appellants. Not only this, the present petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no denial of the fact that deceased Amit has died due to the injuries suffered by him in an accident arising out of the use of said tractor trolley. In this view of the matter, no error can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Dismissed. April 26, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE