F.A.O.No.2051 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.2051 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision 10.11.2009 The New India Assurance Company Limited ...... Appellant VERSUS Raj Bala @ Bala and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.V.Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company. Mr.Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): C.M.No.13594-CII of 2008 For the reasons, mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. F.A.O.No.2051 of 2008(O&M) This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') is directed against the award dated 14.02.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (herein referred as 'the Tribunal), allowing the claim petition of the claimants- respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondents No.6 and 7. The liability of the appellant and respondents No.6 and 7 was held to the extent of 70%. The factual background of the case is that on 21.09.2005 Moti Bhai Pancham Bhai, driver of truck bearing registration No.GJ-12W-6991 alongwith Jwala Bhai Sewa Bhai had gone to a factory 3 kilometers away from Godawari for loading Railway sleepers. Another truck bearing registration No.GJ-12W-5343 was also with them. After loading sleepers, they started their journey at 6:00 p.m. for Adipur Railway Station, District F.A.O.No.2051 of 2008(O&M) 2 Kachchh. Both the trucks reached Dhrandra and crew of both the trucks had taken meals in a hotel at 10:00 p.m. After taking rest, they resumed their journey. When they reached near Halvad petrol pump, rear tyre of truck bearing No.G-12-W-5743 was punctured, therefore, they stopped their journey. The truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-W-6991 was stopped behind the truck No.GJ-12W-5743. In the meantime, at about 2:00 a.m. On the night of 22.09.2005, respondent No.6 while driving truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-T-8669 rashly and negligently rammed his truck against the truck bearing registration No.G-12-W-5743 from behind. Resultantly, Jagdish son of Prabhu Ram died. Criminal case was registered. Claimants also filed claim petition which was contested by the respondents. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as alleged ? OPP 2. What was the income and age of the deceased at the time of his death in the accident, as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, to what effect ? OPR-3 4. Whether there is willful breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, to what effect ? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-oinder of necessary parties ? OPR 6. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom ? OPD 7. Relief. After appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, the claim petition was accepted and the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15,47,520/- to the claimants and against respondents No.1 to 3 F.A.O.No.2051 of 2008(O&M) 3 jointly and severally to the extent of 70% whereas liability to the extent of 30% was imposed upon the owner of truck bearing registration No.GJ-12- W-6991. Having scrutinized the entire evidence including the statement of Raj Bala PW1, photographs of the accident and report of court of inquiry into causes of death of Subedar Jagdish so also the copy of the FIR Ex.P13, the Tribunal reached the right conclusion that the accident took place due to composite negligence of respondent No.1 as well as driving of truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-W-6991. The sole argument before the Tribunal was that it was a case of contributory negligence which also implies that the company did not dispute the accident but stresses the point that the driver of truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-W-6991 was also responsible as he had parked truck in between the road. However, the Tribunal appears to have rightly reached the conclusion that the accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of respondent No.6 i.e. driver of truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-T-6991 in which the deceased was sitting and the driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-12T-8669. Keeping in view the major fault of respondent No.1, the respondents No.1 to 3 were held responsible to the extent of 70%. Since the deceased was a salaried employee, being an army personal, drawing a salary of Rs.12,400/- per month, therefore, the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 12 in this case, awarded the compensation which is not in any way exorbitant. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 10.11.2009 mamta-II