FAO No.2422 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2422 of 1999 DATE OF DECISION: February 14, 2011 CHHOTEY KHAN AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS ISHAQ ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. R.S. SIHOTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR.A.K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4. MR. SANJIV PABBI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation. The petition was dismissed, although the fact of accident itself was not in dispute. The death arising out of the accident could not have been in dispute since the post-mortem report revealed that he had died in road side accident. The FIR gives details of two vehicles which were involved in the collision. The deceased was a driver of the truck bearing registration No.DIL 862 and the respondents were the driver, owner and financier of the other vehicle with the registration No.HR47-3425. The Tribunal held that the author the FIR had not been examined and therefore, FAO No.2422 of 1999 -2- the involvement of the vehicle could not be established. It proceeded, therefore, to award the compensation on No-fault basis, although the respondent who was served chose not to contest the case at the trial. I find the reasoning of the Tribunal to be erroneous. The FIR could be safely relied for what it contained unless it is contested by the other side. I will take the involvement of the respondents' vehicle as established by reference to the particulars in the FIR and hold the respondents' vehicle to be responsible for the accident and the driver was guilty of rash and negligence. 2. The father of the deceased at the time of evidence was 52 years of age and it is not very clear from the evidence as to what the age of the mother was. I am prepared to assume that she was in the age group of 46- 50, for, that will have a bearing for the choice of multiplier. I will take the income to be `4000/- as stated by the father in evidence and adopt a multiplier of 12 and tabulate the compensation payable as under:- Fatal Accidents Age: 25 Occupation Driver 4000 Claimants Parents (51) Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Annual Income 4000 2. Add % of increase 30%/50% Nil - 3. Deduction (1/2,1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/2 4. Multiplicand - Tax 2000 x 12 5. Multiplier 12 6. Loss of Dependence 2,88,000 7. Medical Expenses - 8. Loss of Consortium - 9. Loss to Estate 2500 FAO No.2422 of 1999 -3- Fatal Accidents 10. Funeral Expenses 2500 Total 50,000/- 2,93,000/- 3. The additional amount over what has been determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The liability shall be on the driver and the owner who had availed of loan from the Dhingra Motor Finance. The insurance companies had been given up before the Tribunal. The right of enforcement of the award shall be available for the appellant against respondents No.1 and 4 only. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. February 14, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE