FAO No. 1254 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1254 of 2011 Date of decision February 28 , 2011 Mukesh ....... Appellant Versus Niwan Mehta and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjay Gupta , Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is against the award of compensation for death in a motor accident. The deceased was a motor cyclist and his leg was amputated in a collision with the appellant JCB machine which was said to be coming from the opposite direction and driving in a rash and negligent manner. This was denied by the driver by a statement that the vehicle had been stationed in kacha portion of the road and the deceased had dashed against the JCB machine and came by grievous injuries. The Tribunal was actually considering it in the context of eye witness Ranbir Singh, AW-4. The Tribunal held that he stood his worth in the cross examination and stated that the vehicle was actually moving and it was not stationary. The owner himself had given evidence in Court that the vehicle was stationary at that time but the Court rejected that evidence pointing out that he was not an eye witness himself and that it cannot be accepted. RW-1 driver also gave evidence to the effect that the vehicle was stationary. This evidence was rejected to the preference of evidence of FAO No. 1254 of 2011 2 AW-4. I cannot find any fault in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. It was suggested by the driver that he had parked the vehicle at a curve and the accident had taken place by the inability of the motor cyclist to negotiate the turn and dashed against the JCB machine. If this statement were to be given any credence, even the alleged manner of parking of the vehicle at a curve was wrong and risky. The JCB machine had dangerous protrusions treading objections which was dangerous to any person crossing the road and if ultimately an accident had taken place, owner and driver of such a vehicle must take responsibility. I will not attribute any contributory negligence to the deceased to subject the claim for any abatement at the instance of the legal representatives. It is further contended that the injury had been only an amputation initially and he had succumbed to death about few days later. The accident had taken place on 16.3.2000 and he died on 4.4.2006. There was no intervening incident that was brought on record to accelerate death. The proximate cause for his death was only the accident injury and therefore the death must only be taken as resultant to such an injury. The compensation has to be therefore only on that basis. 2. The deceased was 28 years of age and just about the time of accident he had secured a new employment in a contract. The evidence was that he was earning `7500/- per month. The Tribunal took the income at `4,000/- and after providing for 1/3rd deduction applied a multiplier of 15 determined a compensation for loss of dependency and added also the medical bills. I do not find any error in the manner of assessment of quantum of compensation. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 28, 2011 archana FAO No. 1254 of 2011 3