In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 133 of 1990 Date of decision: 23.8.2006 Ram Singh and another Vs. Sajjan Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. HP Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Rajmohan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Suresh Monga, DAG (Haryana) for respondent No.2 . UMA NATH SINGH, J. This FAO by the parents of the deceased arises out of an award dated 9.11.1989 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, in MACT Case No. 26 of 1988, dismissing the claim petition of the appellants on the ground that the death of Ramesh was not caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver Sajjan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was sitting on the stationery Tempo to be toed away by another tempo. When the accident took place, the offending vehicle came from opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently, and struck against the deceased and then turned turtle. FAO No. 133 of 1990 -2- I have carefully examined the award and also the contemporaneous record. I have also perused the photographs though not exhibited by the police. It appears from the medical report that the deceased suffered maximum injuries on the left side of the body, therefore, it appears that the story re-constructed by the Tribunal that the deceased was crossing the road at the time of accident, does not appear probable particularly when the Tribunal has given a finding that the offending vehicle was coming from behind. The impact of accident on left side of the body cannot be probable when the deceased was crossing the road or he was standing on the side of road. As there are cross versions without sufficient material to endorse either of them, without going into controversy, it appears that the deceased so also the driver of the offending vehicle, both were negligent and on account of their contributory negligence, the accident took place. This is so because the vehicle immediately turned turtle. It also appears that the Tribunal has calculated the award at Rs. 18,000/- on the basis of notional income of a labourer. This amount is based on monthly dependency of Rs. 300/- whereas the Deputy Commissioner's rate was Rs.542/- per month. The deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50 per cent of the amount has been deducted towards FAO No. 133 of 1990 -3-. personal expenses. The claimant's age was about 70 years at the time of accident, therefore, the multiplier of 5 has been applied. Looking to the nature of accident, dearth of material to support and the circumstance indicating contributory negligence of both the parties, I award 50 per cent of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.9,000/-to the claimant with interest at 6 per cent per annumfrom the date of application. Thus, the FAO (being No. 133 of 1990), is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. August 23, 2006 ( UMA NATH SINGH ) dsg JUDGE