FAO No.2524 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2524 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 29.03.2011 Sham Sunder son of Barkat Ram resident of House No.2204, Shri Nagar Colony, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar ......Appellant Versus Smt. Rajni Mehta, aged 40 years, wife of Kamaljeet Mehta (mother of deceased Arun Kumar) and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.2525 of 2011 Sham Sunder son of Barkat Ram resident of House No.2204, Shri Nagar Colony, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar ......Appellant Versus Smt. Tajinder Kaur wife of Parminder Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Both the appeals are at the instance of the owner and driver of a tractor which admittedly was involved in collision with a motor cycle carrying driver as well as pillion rider. The attempt on behalf of the appellant at the trial was to show that there had been a negligence on the part of the motor-cyclist in an attempt to overtake the tractor- trolley from the wrong side of the vehicle and he got hit near the mudguard of the trolley. The report of the motor mechanic also showed that there were fresh scratch marks on the side of mudguard and in the FAO No.2524 of 2011 (O&M) -2- back side also, there was a fresh scratch. The attempt was, therefore, to show that if the motor-cyclist had been careful, there would not have been an accident. The Tribunal, however, held that the accident had taken place only by the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor on the basis of evidence rendered by eye-witnesses and relied also on the fact that even the police after an investigation had found that there was prima facie material to show that the driver of the truck was guilty of rash and negligent act of his driving and criminal case was also proceeded against him. 2. While determining the compensation arising on account of death of both the persons, who were bachelors and the claims, which were made at the instance of the respective parents and siblings, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,70,000/- in each case with interest @9%. The Tribunal had taken the overall income to be Rs.36,000/- per annum, provided a 50% cut for personal expenditure and adopted a multiplier suitable to the age of the younger of the parents. 3. Learned counsel strenuously contends that the motor mechanic's report was clear evidence of the fact that the contention of the claimants that the tractor hit the motor-cyclist from behind was false and a case of negligence on the part of driver of the tractor could not have been cast. I am not prepared to examine the issue of negligence now in view of the finding already rendered by the Tribunal and more particularly in view of the fact that even if the case had not been brought under Section 166 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimants belonged to the lower strata of society and if respective claims had been made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, FAO No.2524 of 2011 (O&M) -3- they could have obtained a compensation to be larger than what was awarded by the Tribunal. In such an eventuality, even the issue of negligence would have been irrelevant, for contributory negligence is no negligence so long as the involvement of the vehicle was an established fact and the owner and driver would have been responsible for the accident. I shall not, therefore, examine the issue of negligence for the liability of a driver and owner of a tractor, who had put a vehicle on the road without even a proper insurance in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and it is sufficient to hold them responsible and make them answerable to the claim arising out of death of the motor cyclist and the pillion rider. 4. Learned counsel also stats that interest has been awarded at 9% and it should have been only 7.5%. There is no rule of thumb that the interest must be awarded only at 7.5%. There are cases where Courts have awarded even 9% interest and I do not think that the issue of rate of interest is very material since the award of compensation itself is for modest amount and an additional 1.5% rate of interest cannot make any big difference. 5. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. The amounts, which are deposited before this Court by the appellant at the time of preferring the appeal are ordered to be sent to the Tribunal to the credit of the case for realization of the claim. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 29, 2011 Pankaj*