IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.655/2009(O&M) Date of Decision:30.1.2009 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ..........Appellant Versus Smt.Chameli Devi and others. ..........Respondents, CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar,Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Co. JASWANT SINGH,J. Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited- has directed this appeal against the award dated 22.8.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short the learned Tribunal), whereby the appellant Insurance Company alongwith owners and driver of the offending tractor was jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Three lac twenty thousand only) to the dependents of deceased Lala Ram @ Lal Chand, aged 45 years old agriculturist in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.7.2007. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offending vehicle i.e. tractor in question was not involved in the accident and just to claim compensation a false case has been set up, as FIR was lodged by Krishan Kumar son of the deceased Lala Ram instead of alleged eye witness Ram Kishan son of Het Ram PW5. It has been further stated that said Ram Kishan son of Het Ram, was examined as PW5, who deposed that he had witnessed the accident in question and had informed the Sarpanch as well as family of the deceased about the same. FAO No.655/2009(O&M) 2 This, in my opinion, is no ground to entertain the present appeal. Said Ram Kishan has only stated that he had witnessed the accident and reported the matter to the Sarpanch as well as family of the deceased. It was not his case that he had reported the matter to the police. On the other hand, after the receipt of said information from Ram Kishan, it was natural on the part of Krishan Kumar son of deceased Lala Ram to report the matter to the police. The reluctance/lapse on the part of Ram Kishan, if any, to report the matter to the police, being an eye witness, can be very well appreciated and attributed to general tendency of a common man to abstain from police proceedings, and the appellant Insurance Company cannot be permitted to take advantage of the same. It was next contended that though the registration number in respect of the offending tractor was issued on 16.7.2007 and the accident took place on 23.7.2007, yet it was reported in the FIR that the offending Tractor was not bearing any registration number and instead displayed A/F (applied for). This argument does not help the appellant-Insurance Company in any manner. If registered owners of the tractor did not care to get printed the registration number on the number plate, despite the registration of the same, the claimants-respondents cannot be held responsible for that or this lapse on the part of the registered owners cannot be taken as a ground to suggest that the offending Tractor was not involved in the accident. It is not disputed that this very Tractor was impounded by the police from the site of accident. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a variation in the make of the offending vehicle vis-a-vis in the FIR and the registration certificate, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the author of the FIR is a villager and for that purpose even an urbanite cannot be expected to correctly know each and every make of vehicle. FAO No.655/2009(O&M) 3 It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. I do not find any merit in this submission also. It has come on the record that the deceased besides being an agriculturist was also running a piggery farm. He had taken loans around Rs.1 lac from three different banks and his re-payment track record was also good. This shows that he was having handsome income. The learned Tribunal keeping in mind the monthly average income of a unskilled labourer to be Rs.2500/- fixed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4000/- and keeping in view the age of deceased being slightly less than 47 years applied the multiplier of 10. After deducting 1/3rd of the income total compensation came out to be Rs.3,20,000/-. Keeping in view the factors applied by learned Tribunal while working out compensation, the same cannot be said to be on higher side. No other point has raised. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Since the appeal stands dismissed in limine, no orders are required to be passed on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant Insurance company seeking condonation of 46 days' delay in filing the appeal. 30.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge