FAO No.6541 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6541 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 08.03.2011 Tikka Ram son of Bharat Singh resident of village Barna District Kurukshetra ......Appellant Versus Smt. Sarbati Devi widow of Jiya Lal and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Bharadwaj, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kr. Yashwant Singh Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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) C.M. No.28570-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Delay of 280 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.28572-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.6541 of 2010 (O&M) 1. The appeal is against an award of compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs for death of a male aged about 45 years. The claimants were widow and FAO No.6541 of 2010 (O&M) -2- two sons, both of whom are majors. 2. The contention of the appellant was that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. He had pointed out to the fact that the FIR had been lodged nearly 5 days after the accident. It was not as if there had been no reason given for not lodging the FIR immediately. In fact, the death of the person itself resulted 10 days after the accident. The claimant said that there had been talks of compromise in the meanwhile and therefore, they had not immediately lodged the FIR. There was an eye-witness to the incident on whose testimony, the Tribunal found that the accident had been established. It is also an admitted case that the driver was facing trial for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The finding of involvement of the vehicle, under the circumstances, is perfectly justified and I will not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. 3. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel would contend that two of the sons were majors and the compensation awarded to them is wrong. I do not find this to be an issue available for the owner to contend with, for it is ultimately a matter of apportionment of compensation amongst the claimants and if they are not aggrieved that there is any error in the assessment, it shall not be made an issue for adjudication at the instance of the owner. In the ultimate bargain even if a claim had been instituted only at the instance of the widow, the deduction would have been only 1/3rd and that has been done in this case. It is contended that income taken by the Tribunal was on the higher side. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2000/- as contribution to the family, which again I FAO No.6541 of 2010 (O&M) -3- find is modest. The choice of multiplier as 15 is also correct. 4. It is also contended that the appellant was not himself the owner and that he had sold the vehicle. It is, however, an admitted fact that the RC was in the name of the appellant and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in passing an award only against the registered owner. This point of law has been set down through a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko 2001(8) SCC 748 and affirmed in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpa @ Leela and others Vs. Shakuntala and others 2011(2) SCC 240. There is no scope for interference. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 08, 2011 Pankaj*