F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 2010(O&M) Date of decision:8th November, 2010 Bhateri Devi and another .......Appellants Versus Neeraj Kumar and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appellants are the claimants whose claim petition was dismissed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the driver and the owner and represented through counsel. The Insurance Company third respondent has been served but none has appeared to defend its case. 2. The involvement of the vehicle was referred to in the FIR by the brand name of the vehicle Balero but the FIR did not make a mention of the driver's name or the registration number. The police had subsequently traced the vehicle and the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C revealed that there had been a dent at the front portion F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 2010(O&M) 2 of the bumper, the front light had been changed and the number plate was also seen to be recently repainted. The complainant had been examined as PW-3 in the case. The driver or the owner did not examine themselves. 3. The contention of the claimant with regard to the involvement of the insured's vehicle was not refuted by any evidence which ought to have been placed by the driver or the owner. This assumes greater importance by the fact that the police investigation had revealed circumstances to connect the insured's vehicle to the accident. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to dismiss the application only on a reasoning that the complainant who claimed in evidence before the Tribunal that he knew the name of the driver of Balero and who claimed that he had given the details of the driver named in the FIR, had not really set out the name of the driver in the FIR. I cannot take this to be a major obstruction to hold against the claimants when there was a clear identification of the vehicle with reference to the brand name of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal had also reasoned that the pillion rider of the motor cycle in which the deceased was riding had not been examined. The Insurance Company had pleaded that it was a case of collusion and that was taken by the Tribunal to hold that the claimants case cannot be true. The inference of collusion as made by the Tribunal seems erroneous in the light of evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants and when no evidence at all had been forthcoming from any of the respondents. There must F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 2010(O&M) 3 be something intrinsic in the nature of evidence to suggest the nature of collusion. In my view, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the reference to the brand name of the vehicle was sufficient to pin down the involvement of the vehicle. The person who contests the claim before me is not the insurer but the driver and the owner themselves and they have no explanation to offer as to why no evidence was adduced on their side to refute the claimants contention or the report elicited through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. I have already observed that the Insurance Company has been served but it has not chosen to make any representation through counsel. I cannot put the case of collusion as contended by the insurer to prevail when there was clear evidence regarding the involvement of the insured vehicle. I hold that the insured's vehicle had been involved in this accident. The Tribunal had already determined the compensation payable at Rs. 4,13,000/- and had also proposed the manner of apportionment but did not proceed to allow the petition in view of its finding that the claimant had not established the involvement of the insured's vehicle. 5. The deceased was an electrician and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 was that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Tribunal had taken his income to be Rs. 3,000/-, provided for a deduction of 1/3rd and took the extent of dependence at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. It had adopted a multiplier of 17 for a deceased who was aged 29 years which conforms to the scale of compensation as F.A.O.NO. 1137 OF 2010(O&M) 4 suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. Both as regards the multiplicand and the multiplier. I see no error on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the manner of apportionment as made. The counsel contends that the larger amount of compenstion must have been provided and the evidence supported the finding for taking income to be over Rs. 36,000/- per month. He had purchased an Electrician Employment Certificate as well. I cannot accede to such a plea and if the Tribunal was making an assessment more than twice over what could be taken under Schedule II, I cannot find fault with the same. 6. I will maintain the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the manner of apportionment and provide for its payment with 7.5% interest from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The second respondent as the owner and the third respondent as the insurer shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 8th November, 2010 Shivani Kaushik