FAO No. 290 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.290 of 1986 Mukesh Arora and others ....Appellants VERSUS Duni Chand and others ....Respondents FAO No. 38 of 1986 Duni Chand and others .....Appellants VERSUS Madan Gopal and others ....Respondents. FAO No. 217 of 1986 Madan Gopal ....Appellant VERSUS Duni Chand and others ....Respondents Decided on : 31-10-2008 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for appellants in FAO No. 290 of 1986 Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate for Madan Gopal MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of three appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 290 of 1986, 38 of 1986 and 217 of 1986 arising out of the same accident in which FAO No. 290 of 1985 2 two scooters one bearing no. CHH 6016 driven by Mohinder Pal, deceased and the other bearing no. DHX 5598 driven by Madan Gopal, injured. The accident is said to have taken place on 2.12.82 at about 10:00 A.M. Two separate claim petitions were preferred one by LRs of deceased Mohinder Pal and the other by Madan Gopal himself as he was injured. The Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that Madan Gopal was driving the scooter negligently and he was responsible for causing the accident. His claim petition was therefore dismissed as he himself was held guilty of contributing to the accident. In so far as claim petition preferred on account of death of Mohinder Pal by claimants who were his parents was allowed and they were granted compensation of Rs. 1,15, 200/-. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the Insurance Company of scooter no. DHX 5598 which was driven by Madan Gopal. Aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal three separate appeals have been preferred, one by Insurance Company of scooter no. DHX 5598 bearing FAO No. 290 of 1986 in which the liability to satisfy the award has been disputed. The appeal has also been filed alongwith owner and only challenge raised therein is regarding the quantum of compensation and the issue of negligence. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate in FAO No. 290 of 1986 contended that the amount awarded is excessive. On a pointed question whether the Insurance Company could question the quantum of compensation and the issue of negligence, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appeal is also on behalf of the owner. FAO No. 290 of 1985 3 I am afraid such an appeal by the owner and the Insurance Company jointly is impermissible under the law and the Insurance Company cannot question the quantum of compensation awarded and also cannot question the issue of negligence. The only defences available to it are statutory defences permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the appeal bearing No. 290 of 1986 is dismissed. In so far as the appeal by Madan Gopal bearing no. 217 of 1986, Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate contended that issue of negligence has been erroneously answered by the Tribunal. It was contended that there is sufficient material on record to show that the scooter driven by Mohinder Pal was responsible for causing the accident. It was stated that the appellant Madan Gopal was coming from a link road from the side of Panchkula while the deceased was coming from the side of Kalka towards Panchkula on the main road. Since the accident took place on left side of the road it could very well be inferred that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the deceased as he was on the wrong side of the road. However, Mr. R.M. Suri conceded that there is no site plan nor there are any photograph on record to verify the submissions that he has made. He referred to the testimony of the claimant Madan Gopal in which he has given the version of the accident. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is mis-placed. A perusal of the award reveals that the version of the accident as given out by the appellant Madan Gopal was on the basis of what had been told to him by the police in the hospital. His credibility as a witness therefore stands shattered from this factum. Apparently, he had FAO No. 290 of 1985 4 given a self-serving statement to suit his needs. There is no evidence on record to show that the version as given by the appellant Madan Gopal is correct version of the accident. There being no suggestive evidence of the kind as desired by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. Since the appellant himself has been held guilty of causing the accident his claim petition has rightly been declined. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Third appeal bearing No. 38 of 1986 has been preferred by the parents and brothers of deceased Mohinder Pal who have prayed for enhanced compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/-. The deceased was 29 years of age. Annual dependency was assessed as Rs. 9600/- by taking his income as Rs. 800/- per month and a multiplier of 12 has been applied to arrive at the aforesaid figure of compensation which was awarded in favour of the parents of the deceased. Claim qua brothers of deceased was declined. The deceased was an Advocate by profession and for the period from 1st April, 1982 to 1st December, 1982 his professional income had been declared as Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal assessed his income as Rs. 1250/- per month and dependency at Rs. 800/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded is inadequate. Considering the income tax returns of the deceased which were on record, the income has been rightly assessed as Rs. 1250/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, the dependency has been assessed somewhat harshly and on the lower side. It is also common knowledge that a practising lawyer manages some miscellaneous expenses including expenses for himself from FAO No. 290 of 1985 5 some marginal amounts which he manages to get from his clients. In this view of the matter, it would be safe to assess dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Multiplier of 12 which has been applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate as the deceased would have got married after sometime and the dependency qua the claimants would have decreased. Accordingly, compensation comes to Rs. 1,44,000/-. Nothing has been awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded under both these heads. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,74,000/-. The enhanced amount is awarded in favour of parents of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has rightly declined the claim qua appellants no. 3 and 4 who are the brothers of deceased and this part of the award does not warrant any interference. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. October 31, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge