IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO 2270/2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 25.5.2009. Baldev Singh ..........Appellant Versus Balbir Kaur and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.NL Sammi,Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM no.11020-CII of 2009 allowed and delay of 17 days in making good the deficiency in payment of court fee is condoned. FAO No.2270/2009. Baldev Singh-driver of the offending vehicle has filed the instant appeal challenging the award dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) awarding a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants (respondents 1 to 3 herein) for the death of Garja Singh deceased in a motor vehicular accident caused by the appellant on 13.1.2003 while driving offending vehicle (Swaraj Mazda No.HR-05- 8277). The award is challenged on two counts (i) the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased himself; in an accident caused by a car and not by the offending vehicle; and (iii) the compensation awarded is on higher side. As regards the negligence part, the claimants examined PW1 Kimti Lal, who is an eye witness to the accident. It was stated by him that on the fateful day he FAO 2270/2009(O&M) 2 was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle being owned and driven by deceased Garja Singh,who was driving the same at low speed and on left side of the road. At about 6.30 pm, when they reached near Village Takhtu Majra, then the offending vehicle came from behind and hit their motorcycle due to which they both fell down and received multiple injuries, including one head injury received by Garja Singh. According to him, they were taken to hospital by one Dalwinder Singh son of Gurbax Singh in a private vehicle. Kimti Lal also produced his MLR ExP2 to show that he had received the injuries in the said accident. It is at the instance of this witness that the FIR Ex.P1 regarding the said accident was lodged. Claimants also examined said Dalwinder Singh as PW3, who corroborated the ocular version given by Kimti Lal. On the other hand, to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, appellant examined one Kabal Singh RW1, who in his affidavit stated that deceased Garja Singh and Kimti Lal had suffered injuries in an accident caused by a car, which fact he had brought to the notice of the police also and that a false case had been planted upon the appellant as Kimti Lal was inimical towards the latter. It was also stated by him that a news item had also appeared in newspaper regarding the accident in question. Appellant also appeared as RW2 and tendered his affidavit wherein he denied to have caused the accident. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, in my considered opinion, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified. The learned Tribunal while holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant believed the version PW1 Kimti Lal as (i) he was eye witness to the accident who himself had received injuries as per his MLR (Ex.P/2) in the said accident; (ii) in the FIR he had FAO 2270/2009(O&M) 3 given the complete description of the offending vehicle/ driver, as appellant, deceased and said Kimti Lal PW1 are residents of same village; (iii) the accident took place on 13.1.2003 at 6.30 pm and the DDR was recorded on the same day at 10.50 pm; (iv) though it was alleged by Kabal Singh RW1 that a false case had been planted upon appellant because of animosity between appellant and said Kimti Lal, however, no motive was attributed for said animosity; (v) nothing was produced on record to show that against planting of a false case the appellant had moved to higher police authorities (vi) no reliance can be placed upon newspaper report that the accident was caused by car, as was stated by RW1 Kabal Singh. As regards the compensation awarded is concerned, the monthly income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.3000/- and after imposing 1/3rd cut towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency was arrived at Rs.2000/-. Deceased being 38 years of age, multiplier of 15 was applied. Besides that a funeral expenses of Rs.5000/- was also awarded. In my considered opinion, the total compensation of Rs. 3,65,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 25.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge