IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:18.3.2009. FAO 1286/2009(O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ..........Appellant Versus Gurdev Kaur and others ..........Respondents FAO 1287/2009(O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited ..........Appellant Versus Baljinder Kaur and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora,Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Co.. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral) This order will dispose of FAO Nos.1286 and 1287 of 2009, as both these appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the awards dated 8.10.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby claim petitions no.6 and 8 of 2008 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 FAO 1286/2009(O&M) 2 (for short the Act), arising out of a motor vehicular accident were partly allowed and the dependents-claimants were granted compensation for the death of Pargat Singh and Gurpreet Singh,respectively. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant,the delay of 24 days in refiling and 3 days in filing is condoned in both the appeals. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.RJ- 19-GA-5484 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) whereas the driver of the other truck i.e. PB-19-C-9665 (hereinafter referred to as ill fated vehicle), in which the deceased were travelling, was rash and negligent, and as such the awards passed by the learned Tribunal in both the appeals are liable to be set aside. It was next argued by the learned counsel that compensation assessed in both the claim petitions is on higher side. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, I find no force in these submissions and the same are rejected. Before dealing with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, it would be appropriate to make a brief mention of the facts leading to the accident in question. As per averments made in the claim petitions, referred to above, on 13.12.2007, deceased Pargat Singh and Gurpreet Singh were travelling FAO 1286/2009(O&M) 3 alongwith one Gurjant Singh in truck trailer No.PB-19-C-9665, being driven by Darshan Singh. On the fateful day the said ill fated vehicle, laden with potates was on its way from Hoshiarpur to Surat (Gujrat). The deceased Pargat Singh (2nd/Extra Driver) and Gurpreet Singh (2nd/Extra Cleaner/Khalasi) were sitting in the rear cabin while Gurjant Singh (Cleaner/Khalasi) was sitting on the adjoining seat of Darshan Singh, who was driving the said ill fated truck trailer. When they reached Mega Highway at Sarhad Sanda, District Barmer (Rajasthan) at about 6.30 p.m. on 13.12.2007, the offending vehicle, which was going ahead of them came to a halt all of a sudden and without any indication, as a result of which the driver of the ill fated vehicle could not control his vehicle and rammed into offending vehicle due to which all the four occupants of the ill fated vehicle sustained injuries, out of which Pargat Singh and Gurpreet Singh succumbed to their injuries at the spot. However, an FIR bearing no.123 dated 13.12.2007 relating to this accident was got registered by Parbat Singh, driver of the offending vehicle on wrong facts and in connivance with the police officials so as to escape liability. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in their reply, sent by post, denied the averments made in the claim petitions and alleged that the accident took place due to the negligent and rash driving on the part of the driver of the ill fated truck. However, they did not appear in the witness box to lead any evidence in support of the plea taken by them in their reply and were also FAO 1286/2009(O&M) 4 proceeded ex parte. On the other hand, claimants in order to prove the negligence on the part of the offending truck examined Gurjant Singh-PW2 (Cleaner/Khalasi) who was travelling in the ill fated truck at the time of accident. He reiterated the manner, stated above, in which the accident took place. He further deposed that driver of the offending vehicle in order to ward off the liability, got an FIR registered at PS Sindhari, District Barmer, by stating wrong facts. He also deposed that deceased Pargat Singh and Gurpreet Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the claimants held that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 Parbat Singh. Regarding registration of FIR by driver of offending vehicle, learned Tribunal has rightly held that “FIR is not the condition pre-requisite to seek compensation in an accidental case and it is only the corroborative piece of evidence”. In my opinion, in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence led by the respondents (owner and driver) of the offending vehicle, the mere stand taken by them in their postal written statement that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the ill fated vehicle or the lodging of the FIR by Parbat Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) cannot lead to a contrary finding. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of oral and documentary FAO 1286/2009(O&M) 5 evidence led by the claimants, has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As regard the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal on the basis of unrebutted evidence led by the claimants, after deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards their personal expenses, assessed the annual dependency in the case of Gurpreet Singh (2nd/Extra Cleaner/Khalasi) as Rs.31992/- and in the case of Pargat Singh (2nd/Extra Driver) as Rs.40000/- and applied multiplied of 14 and 13 respectively. The claimants were also held entitled to consortium and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- each on both the counts. In my opinion, the total compensation awarded to the claimants, by no stretch of imagination can be termed to be exhorbitant or on higher side. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in these appeals, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the file of FAO No.1287 of 299. 18.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge