IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.4803/2008 Date of Decision: 29.4.2009. Smt.Bateri Devi and another ..........Appellants Versus Mahabir And others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J CM No.24827-CII/2008. CM allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to all just exceptions. FAO No.4803/2008. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.1.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby their claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of their unmarried son,Virender Singh, in a motor vehicular accident was dismissed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has erred while recording finding against issue no.1 that appellants- claimants have not been able to prove and establish the identity of the offending vehicle and of its driver. It is further contended that the multiplier applied and the deduction of 50% income of the deceased while calculating dependency of the FAO No.4803/2008 2 claimants, also deserves to be modified. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. As per allegations contained in the claim petition, on 3.1.2002 at about 10 pm, deceased Virender Singh was returning to his home on motorcycle bearing No.HR-31B-6714 from Milk Plant, Jind. On his reaching near the turning point of subzi mandi, a canter Tata-407 bearing registration no.HR-46-6514, being driven rashly and negligently without blowing any horn came from wrong side and hit the motorcycle of the Virender Singh, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous and multiple injuries. The accident was allegedly witnessed by various persons including one Nagender Singh. The injured succumbed to his injuries while being taken to General Hospital Jind. An FIR Ex.P1 was recorded in this regard on 4.1.2002 against unknown driver. A perusal of the impugned award shows that as per FIR (Ex.P1) which was got recorded by Dharam Pal (appellant no.2)-who is none else than father of the deceased Virender Singh- the offending vehicle was bearing registration no.HR-31- 1764. Said Dharam Pal appeared in the witness box as PW3. In his duly sworn affidavit Ex.P2, he had given ocular version of the accident as if he was an eye witness. In that affidavit he had given the the number of offending vehicle as HR- 46-6514. When cross examined at length to reconcile the discrepant registration numbers of offending vehicle appearing in the FIR(Ex.P1) and affidavit (Ex.P2) Dharam Pal conceded that he had not eye witnessed the accident and the FIR was got recorded by him as per information given to him by Nagender Singh. Nagender Singh, the alleged eye witness was examined by the claimants as PW4. In his affidavit (Ex.P3) it was averred by him that on the fateful day at about 9.30 pm the deceased was coming on his red coloured motor cycle and when he reached near the turning point of subzi mandi, a Tata Canter No.HR-46- FAO No.4803/2008 3 6514, being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the motor cycle of the deceased as a result of which deceased Virender Singh suffered multiple injuries on his body and died at the spot. In the said affidavit Nagender Singh mentioned that the offending Tata Canter was having Parrot green colour from the front side and of light blue and brown colour on remaining back portion. During his searching cross examination said witness stated that he was at a distance of about 20 feet distance from the scene of accident. It was also stated by him that he had given the complete description of the offending vehicle, including its colour, to the police. At this point, he was confronted with his earlier statement Ex.D1 where colour of the offending vehicle was not mentioned. He also could not deny the fact that in his statement Ex.D1 he had given the number of offending vehicle as HR-31-1764. The learned Tribunal, after a careful scrutiny of the evidence of these two star witnesses found that the two different numbers (HR-31-1764 and HR-46- 6514) given by Dharam Pal PW3 and Nagender Singh PW4 bear no similarity inasmuch as both numbers have distinct pictorial effect and phonetical pronunciation. In order to make the Tribunal overlook this discrepancy an argument was advanced that contents of the FIR are not final and there is a possibility of change, however, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that keeping in view the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of PWs and contents of the FIR (Ex.P1) the claimants have not been able to prove that deceased Virender Singh died in the motor vehicular accident caused by offending vehicle. I find no illegality with the findings recorded by learned Tribunal against issue no.1. As regards the income of the deceased Virender Singh, claimants examined Krishan Lal PW4, an official of Milk Plant, Jind, who deposed that deceased did his apprenticeship from that Milk Plant during the period from FAO No.4803/2008 4 15.10.1998 to 14.10.2001 and he was paid Rs.550/-, 670/- and 770/- per month respectively for the first, second and third year respectively. The accident took place on 3.1.2002. The appellants-claimants have not been able to produce any documentary evidence which may show the income of the deceased at the time of his death. In the absence of any documentary proof, the learned Tribunal, taking the deceased to be a skilled labour assessed his monthly income @ Rs.3000/- per month and after deducting ½ of it towards personal expenses being unmarried, the multiplier of 12 was applied. In my opinion, in the absence of any documentary evidence the monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and no fault can be found with it. Same is the position with regard to the multiplier applied and monthly dependency of the claimants arrived at by the learned Tribunal. No other point has been urged before this Court. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 29.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge