FAO No. 4617 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 27.4.2010 1. F. A. O. No. 4617 of 2009 (O&M) Pawan Kumar and another ... Appellants vs Amit Kumar .... Respondent 2. F. A. O. No. 4641 of 2009 (O&M) Pawan Kumar and another ... Appellants vs Smt. Shakuntla and others .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of aforementioned appeals as the same arise out of one accident. The appellants, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle, have challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). The facts are extracted from FAO No. 4617 of 2009. Briefly the facts as stated in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 7.8.2006 at about 10.00 p.m., Sant Kumar along with Amit Kumar was coming to his house on a scooter. Sant Kumar was driving the scooter and Amit Kumar was its pillion rider. When they reached near the office of Malik Properties, a Maruti car bearing No. DL-4CH-6301, driven by appellant Pawan Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, came from front side, and struck against the scooter. As a result of which, they sustained injuries. Both were taken to PGIMS, Rohtak, where Sant Kumar succumbed to his injuries on 9.8.2006 and Amit Kumar remained admitted. FIR No. 148 dated 9.8.2006 was registered in Police Station, Sampla, against appellant Pawan Kumar. The claimants filed petitions before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation, which were allowed vide common award dated 5.3.2009. As the offending vehicle was not insured, the appellants, who are driver and owner of the offending vehicle, were held liable to pay the compensation. It is this award which is impugned by the owner and driver in the appeals. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that FAO No. 4617 of 2009 -2- the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident rather a false case has been planted by the police. It was submitted that the alleged accident took place on 7.8.2006 at 10.00 p.m., whereas the FIR was got registered on 9.8.2006. Further it was submitted that since the claimants had not submitted any proof about the income, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is also on higher side. It was prayed that the award of the learned Tribunal be set aside. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants have no force. With regard to false implication of the appellants at the hands of the police, they have not stated that any police official/officer had any enmity with them or any of the police authority wanted to settle his personal grudge. Criminal case bearing FIR No. 148 dated 9.8.2006, under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 IPC has been registered against appellant Pawan Kumar for the accident. In the absence of any such evidence the allegations that the appellants have been falsely implicated is nothing else than an attempt to wriggle out from the liability to pay the compensation in the absence of the insurance policy. Deceased Sant Kumar was aged 26 years at the time of death. Though his widow while appearing in the witness box stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 3,600/- per month. The deceased had left behind, widow, old parents and two minor children. After applying cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses and applying multiplier of 16, the learned Tribunal granted Rs. 4,60,800/- which cannot be said on higher side. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. In the case of Amit Kumar, who was seriously injured in the accident in question, the learned Tribunal granted Rs. 1,02,500/- as compensation. He suffered 30% permanent disability and on account of this, he was granted Rs. 60,000/- which is in consonance with the judgment of this court. He could not perform any job for about three months after the accident and on this count he was granted Rs. 7,500/- and the same cannot be said to be on higher side. It is only due to the reason that the offending vehicle was not insured that the appellants are trying to escape from satisfying the award. For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals are dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellants before this court shall be transferred to the learned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. Upholding of award in the appeals by the driver and owner will not FAO No. 4617 of 2009 -3- prejudice the appeal, if any, filed by the claimants, which shall be considered on its own merits. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed being devoid of merits. 27.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge