FAO NO.3186 OF 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.3186 OF 2011 Date of Decision: 29.8.2011 Raj Singh and another ...Appellants Gurmail Kaur @ Gurtej Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RVS Chugh, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) The present appeal is directed against the award dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (for short `the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondents has been accepted. The brief facts of the present case are that on 26.11.2009, Gurtej Singh alongwith his wife Gurmel Kaur and his two children were going to attend a marriage function at Village Natheha. On the way, they met with an accident with a Jeep bearing registration No.HR 20 F/1067 (for short `the offending vehicle') resulting in death of Gurtej Singh. The present appeal is preferred on the ground that the alleged accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Raj Singh (appellant No.1). The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record, held liable the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,81,000/- to the claimants. FAO NO.3186 OF 2011 2 Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants being driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is no proof regarding the age of the deceased and the learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon the post-mortem report. He further contends that the income of the deceased was taken on higher side. Learned counsel has also submitted that the at the time of accident, the deceased alongwith his wife and two children had been riding the motorcycle, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. From the perusal of the case file as well as impugned award, it emerges that the age of the deceased was taken to be 35 years, which is evident from the post mortem examination report, Exhibit P1. The doctor is a qualified person who can determine the tentative age of the patient body examined by him. Moreover, the doctor is not an interested party. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the age of the deceased. The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was carrying his wife and two children on his motorcycle, and therefore, he was himself negligent, cannot escape the liability of contributory negligence. There is no convincing evidence on record to prove this fact. There are no pleadings to this effect and no issue was claimed by the appellant before the Tribunal. This point cannot be agitated before this Court. On the basis of pleadings, no case for the contributory negligence is made out against the deceased. As regards the income of the deceased, the income of the FAO NO.3186 OF 2011 3 deceased was held to be `4500/- per month, which cannot be said to be more than the income of a casual labourer. There is no infirmity in the well reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. In view of above, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 29.8.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE