FAO No.5322 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5322 of 2008 Date of decision: December 24, 2008. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Santosh widow & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This appeal has been preferred by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award dated 15.9.2008 passed by the MACT, Karnal whereby respondents No.1 to 5 – claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- on account of the death of Sanjiv Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.6.2007. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that the deceased Sanjiv Kumar was coming to his house on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05-S-4198 at a moderate speed on the left hand side of the road. When he reached opposite Water Supply Pump near the gate of FAO No.5322 of 2008 -: 2 :- S.D. Modern School, Karnal, the offending Haryana Roadways bus of Jind Depot bearing registration No.HR-56-1932 came from behind. It is alleged that the bus was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The bus driver struck the bus against the motorcycle from the back side and one of the wheels of the bus crossed-over the lower abdomen of the deceased and thereafter his body was dragged upto some distance, resulting into instant death of Sanjiv Kumar. FIR No.349 dated 19.6.2007, under sections 279, 304-A IPC, was registered at the instance of Vijay Kumar s/o Nand Lal. The respondent-claimants, who are the widow, two minor children and the parents of deceased Sanjiv Kumar, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20 lacs on the ground that the deceased was their sole bread earner. The claim petition was contested by the State of Haryana and its driver as well as the appellant Insurance Company who filed their separate written statements. From the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the accident in question took place on 19.6.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.HR-56-1932 by respondent No.1 Hoshiar Singh in which Sanjeev Kumar had died, as alleged? OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in FAO No.5322 of 2008 -: 3 :- violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect? OPR 4) Relief.” The Tribunal has answered issue No.1 in affirmative, holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.HR-56-1932 driven by Hoshiar Singh (respondent No.6). While arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of Vijay Kumar (PW2), who is an eye-witness to the occurrence and is also the author of the FIR. In addition, copy of the FIR (Ex.P17), report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P18), certified copy of the site-plan (Ex.P19), certified copy of the mechanical report of the bus (Ex.P20), certified copy of the mechanical report of the motorcycle (Ex.P21) and copy of the post-mortem report (Ex.P22) have also been relied upon by the Tribunal. The unimpeachable version of the eye-witness is duly supported by the documents aforementioned and the manner in which the deceased was crushed over by the bus and his body was dragged upto a distance, speaks largely that the accident was caused due to sheer and gross negligence of the bus driver. No interference in the said finding of fact is, therefore, called for. Adverting to issue No.2, the Tribunal has taken notice of the fact that the deceased was less than 40 years of age and was quite hale and hearty. He was running a shop of sale of hardware articles in Ram Nagar, Karnal. The deceased was owner of a car, a motorcycle and used to own and possess facilities like mobile phone, air-conditioners, TV etc. The deceased was an income-tax assessee. These facts have been duly proved by the respondent-claimants by placing on record the documents Ex.P2 to FAO No.5322 of 2008 -: 4 :- P16. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased used to lead a comfortable life, the Tribunal has assessed his income @ Rs.7500/- per month. The Tribunal has thereafter deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased as a general rule. The Tribunal has accordingly assessed the monthly dependency @ Rs.5,000/-, i.e., Rs.60,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal has granted total compensation of Rs.9,10,000/-. I have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and perused the impugned award. No meaningful argument could be advanced to assail the firm findings of fact returned by the Tribunal which are substantially based upon appreciation of the documentary evidence. The findings returned by the Tribunal, therefore, warrant no interference by this Court. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. December 24, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge