F.A.O No.159 of 2011 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No.159 of 2011 Date of decision 13.01.2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd ......Appellant Versus Rajwinder Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. The United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinreferred) to as the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging award dated 13.10.2010 of Motors Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda. Whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,39,755/- in claim petition No.73 of 2009 and a claim of Rs.4,07,452/- in claim petition No.74 of 22.07.2009 in favour of Rajwinder Kaur (daughter) and Gagandeep Singh (Son) on account of compensation of their parents Amrik Singh (father) and Amarjeet Kaur (mother) who died in vehicular accident. The two claim petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act) were consolidated and were disposed of vide single award dated 13.10.2010 which is under challenge before this Court. In brief facts are that on 4.10.2008, the deceased Amarjeet Kaur along with her husband Amrik Singh (since deceased) and the petitioner Gagandeep Singh were coming from Bathinda to Ratia in the Car make ZEN bearing registration No.DL-3CK-9273, driven by the deceased Amrik Singh at a normal speed and on the extreme left side of the road. Amarjeet F.A.O No.159 of 2011 2 Kaur was sitting by the side of Amrik Singh, whereas petitioner Gagandeep Singh was sitting in the rear seat. At about 9.00 p.m., when the Car crossed the Bus Stand of village Maisarkhana, suddenly a Jeep make Bolero bearing registration No.PB-31E-9097, driven by Ram Singh in a rash and negligent manner and driven by Ram Singh, at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner came from behind without using dipper and blowing horn. In the meantime a Truck came from the opposite direction, as a result of which, respondent Ram Singh, having failed to control the speed of the Jeep, turned the same towards his left side and the same hit against the Car of Amrik Singh, which further hit against a tree standing by the side of the road. All the occupants of the Car sustained multiple grievous injuries on their persons. Amrik Singh died at the spot, while Amarjeet Kaur succumbed to her injuries while being taken to Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Petitioner Gagandeep Singh also sustained grievous injuries and he became unconscious. He went into coma and was taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where he remained admitted for a period of about six months. The information regarding accident was lodged by one Prem Nath, a close relative of the occupants of the Jeep make Bolero vide DDR No.28 dated 05.10.2008. The police initiated the proceedings only under Sections 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the recovery from the coma, petitioner Gagandeep Singh approached the police of Police Station, Kot Fatta and the higher police authorities for the registration of a criminal case against the respondent Ram Singh, but to no effect. It was alleged in the petition that at the time of death deceased Amarjeet Kaur was aged 44 years. She was employed as Government Teacher in Government High School and was drawing a salary to the tune F.A.O No.159 of 2011 3 of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. Beside, the said amount she used to look after the family affairs and in that way her annual income was Rs.5,00,000/- approximately. It was further alleged that Amrik Singh deceased father of the claimants was about 45 years he was Junior Engineer with Punjab State Electricity Board and was drawing of salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He was also holding five acres of land from which he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Ram Singh, Driver and Bhupinder Singh owner contested the petition on the ground that as a matter of fact on 04.10.2008, Prem Nath along with his father-in-law Budh Ram Garg, mother-in-law Krishna Devi, Vanital Rani wife of Jagan Nath, Guddo daughter of Jagan Nath, Simmi daughter of Jagan Nath and Naresh Kumar, residents of Budhlada, were coming back in the jeep make Bolero No.PB-31E-9097 after attending a fair at Maisarkhana one car make ZEN bearing registration No.DL-3C-293 came from the opposite direction, driven by Amrik Singh at a fast speed in rash and negligent manner and the same had hit against the jeep make Bolero and as a result of the accident, Budh Ram Garg, Krishna Devi, Amrik Singh and his wife died. The occupants of the jeep make Bolero had also sustained injuries. The accident had occurred because of the negligent driving of Amrik Singh. Information regarding the accident was lodged by Prem Nath with Police Station, Kot Fatta, having got recorded a DDR. Since, Amrik Singh, who was responsible for causing of the accident had died, no action was taken by the police and only the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were conducted. The version of the DDR is correct and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation. It is also the plea taken up by the respondents that the jeep make Bolero was insured with respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 was F.A.O No.159 of 2011 4 holding a valid driving licence. Ultimately, the respondents denied their liability to pay any compensation to the petitioners and prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company, appellant also contested the plea on the ground that Ram Singh, Driver was not holding a valid driving licence and the owner was not having a valid registration certificate and fitness certificate of the vehicle. The insurance company also denied the factum of the accident. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Amarjeet Kaur and Amrik Singh had died on 04.10.2008 because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep make Bolero No.PB-31E-9097 by respondent No.1?OPC. 2. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-1 3. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?OPC 4. Relief. On perusal of the evidence the learned Tribunal decided issues No.1, 2 and 3 in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) and issue No.2 against the insurance company i.e. the appellant. While deciding issue No.1 regarding assessment of compensation the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13 on account of death of deceased Amrik Singh and also in case of death of Amarjeet Kaur. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of the award I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal was fully justified in applying multiplier of 13. The compensation F.A.O No.159 of 2011 5 and other charges has been rightly assessed and granted for death of Amrik Singh. The total compensation comes to Rs.4,07,452/-. Similarly, while calculating the income the learned Tribunal has rightly granted compensation to the tune of Rs.9,39,756/- on account of death of Amrik Singh deceased. On issue No.3 the appellant insurance company has not led any evidence that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Keeping in view, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R1 the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability of the insurance company-appellant to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any infirmity in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the DDR was not correctly recorded. He referred to the statement of Ram Singh, Driver in order to show that the Zen Car (DL-3CK-9273) being driven by Amrik Singh was coming from the opposite side and it struck against the Bolero Jeep (PB-31E-9097). The learned counsel further argued that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of ZEN Car by Amrik Singh deceased. The appellant cannot be allowed to raise this argument. The finding of the learned Tribunal on this issue is based on correct appreciation of evidence that must not be disturbed, in an appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. Resultantly, the appeal of the insurance company is dimissed in limine. January 13, 2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Jyoti 1 JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes