IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO. NO.1177 OF 2009 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 5.3.2009 United India Insurance Company Ltd ....Petitioner(s) Versus Surinder Kaur and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company for setting aside the award dated 1.12.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali whereby a sum of Rs.3,67,200/- has been awarded to the claimants with interest @ 8 %per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization to be paid by all the respondents jointly and severally on account of death of Jarnail Singh in the motor vehicular accident involving Tanker No.PB-12C/1197 (hereinafter to be referred as “offending Tanker”). Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that it was a hit and run case. After detailed investigation, the police had filed cancellation report stating that the offending vehicle could not be traced and no occurrence as alleged, took place and as such, no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of FIR or other cogent proof, the insurer could not have been burdened with the liability. He also contends that the compensation awarded by the learned FAO. NO.1177 OF 2009 (O&M) #2# Tribunal is on the excessive side. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the claimants had examined eye-witness PW1 Hazur Singh, author of the FIR No.47 dated 12.3.2006, who deposed that “on the fateful day i.e 12.3.2006 and time, he was going behind the deceased on his scooter after taking bread and milk from Mundi Kharar and when they reached near Bansan Wali Chungi, Kharar, then the offending tanker bearing No.PB-12-C/1197 driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from Chandigarh side and struck against the cycle of the deceased Jarnail Singh, as a result of which the deceased fell down. He further deposed that the respondent No.2 had alighted from his Tanker and after seeing the condition of the deceased, he fled away from the spot”. It is undisputed that in the FIR lodged without delay, the registration number of the offending Tanker was given. Learned Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, observed that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the respondent-driver and this negligence cannot be determined on the basis of contents of the FIR only and that simply because the police has recommended cancellation of the FIR, which has not still been accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate, is not sufficient to prove that no accident as alleged had taken place. In the light of the judgments of this Court reported as Virat Sama v. Mohan Lal 1994 (1) PLR 82, Bhanwar Lal Verma v. Sharad Throlla & Ors 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 210 and Ranjit Kaur v. Chhinderpal Singh & Others 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 702, laying down that mere registration of the FIR is not a condition precedent for a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to succeed, as the FAO. NO.1177 OF 2009 (O&M) #3# claimants have to prove on record by leading evidence that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the respondent-driver and this negligence cannot be determined on the basis of the contents of the FIR/DDR only. Learned Tribunal in the present case, held that the claimants by examining Hazur Singh, maker of the FIR and eye-witness have been able to prove that the accident in question, had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tanker. Learned Tribunal further noticed that respondent No.2-Deep Singh (respondent No.5 herein) the driver of the offending Tanker himself was the best witness to rebut the evidence led by the claimants but for the reasons best known to the respondents, he was not examined and, therefore, an adverse inference is also drawn against the respondents. It is the settled preposition of law that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same can only be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of its maker and further for a claim petition to succeed, independent and sufficient evidence has to be brought on record. In the present case, I find that no fault can be found with the finding of the learned Tribunal in ignoring the proposal for cancellation of FIR in view the evidence produced on record. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it has come on the record that the deceased besides being an Ex-servicemen, was working with J.C.T Dispensary. He was 46 years of age at the time of his death. A multiplier of only 9 has been applied and after deducting 1/3rd out of total monthly income of Rs.51,00/-, the annual dependency was fixed at Rs.40000/-, and thus total a sum of Rs.3,67,200/- was awarded to the FAO. NO.1177 OF 2009 (O&M) #4# claimants as compensation, which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be on higher side. From the evidence on record, claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- to be paid by all the respondents jointly and severally. In view of the above, no good ground is made out to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. Dismissed. March 05, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE