FAO No.1468 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1468 of 2004 Date of Decision. 01.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO 337- 340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Khushal Thakur, Assistant Administrative Officer ......Appellant Versus Smt. Kuldeep Kaur widow of Sh. Gursharan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Navin Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.7. None for other respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal complaining inter alia of the failure of the Tribunal to consider the application filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act where the insurer had pleaded that the claimant and insured had colluded together. The deceased was a police constable and it was contended that the entry in the DDR made no reference about the involvement of the insured's vehicle but had been subsequently incorporated with the connivance of the police having regard to the fact that the deceased was a police constable himself. The Tribunal ought to have passed an order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the case where FAO No.1468 of 2004 -2- there was a suspicion of collusion or when the owner and the driver did not contest the case. I grant permission to the appellant and I proceed to examine the case on all the issues argued. 2. As regards the involvement of the vehicle, the contention of the insurer was that investigator collected a copy of the DDR that made only a reference to a scooter with no details of registration number. This document was produced before the Tribunal as Mark A but it was not accepted in evidence. A person, who was alleged to have secured the copy of the DDR namely the investigator was not examined. At the trial, the documents itself was denied by the police and the copy produced before the Court and accepted as a document in evidence made a clear reference to the registration number of the insured's vehicle as well. With no explanation coming as to why an attempt of the insurer to prove the alleged DDR first issued by the Police, I have to only discard the same and take the recitals of what is found in the DDR as produced and marked as evidence as constituting prima facie proof of the involvement of the vehicle. A witness was also examined to show that the deceased was riding as a pillion rider in the scooter driven by the driver Rajinder Singh. The Tribunal has accepted the version and has found the vehicle to have been involved in the accident. 3. Learned counsel would also contend that even the DDR entry shows that the accident took place due to no fault of the driver. The accident is said to have taken place when the driver drove over some bricks lying on the road on the kucha portion and the pillion rider fell down on the right side on the metal part of the FAO No.1468 of 2004 -3- road and succumbed to the injuries. I cannot accept the plea that any accident could have taken place even in spite of due care. There are various degrees of negligence and a person driving on a brick and falling down from the scooter should still be seem to be seen to be negligent in his act of not properly seeing the presence of a brick on the road and drove over it. A statement that no one was responsible for the accident in DDR must be understood in the proper context that it was negligence nevertheless if the involvement of the vehicle is proved. 4. On the issue of quantum, the deceased was earning s.9606/- per month. The Tribunal took the net salary and adopted a multiplier without making for provision for future increase of salary which is the dispensation which has come through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121. 5. The compensation awarded to the representatives of the deceased who was 44 years of age at Rs.7,96,000/- cannot be said to be excessive for it does not factor the future increase of salary and if it ought to be done, the amount that should have been awarded must be even larger than what has been granted. The plea that the compensation is excessive is without any substance. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 01, 2010 Pankaj*