IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No.913 of 1986 Date of Decision: 22.10.2008 Rajpal Singh and another. ....... Appellants through Shri H.S.Bhullar, Advocate. Versus Kanwar Singh and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is an appeal preferred by the claimants against award dated 2.9.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 3 of 1986. One Mukesh, aged 16 years and a student of 9th class, died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.1985. The claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased for grant of compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the identity of the vehicle which was involved in the accident had not been established conclusively. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue by contending that the cogent evidence in this regard had been totally ignored. He further contended that F.A.O.No.913 of 1986 -2- .... the proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of enquiry and conclusive proof as is required in the proceedings before a Criminal Court is not necessary. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is perverse as it has held that the F.I.R. Did not depict the number of the vehicle and the name of the driver and also went on to rely on other ancillary evidence to hold against the claimants. No one has appeared for the respondents. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully gone through the whole record. There is, indeed, no doubt that the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are in the nature of enquiry. In the matters of accident, it is conceivable and understandable that the identity of the vehicle may not be noticed at the time of occurrence and especially when the vehicle is driven away from the spot after the incident. In that eventuality, the Tribunal is somewhat left groping in the dark and, therefore, it is forced to look at the evidence which may indicate even though obliquely towards the involvement of a particular vehicle in the accident. In the instant case, the testimony of PW3-Anil Kumar, who was the person accompanying the deceased on the bicycle on the fateful day, is revealing to some extent. He was a student of 9th class as well and was the class-mate of the deceased. A young boy of tender age was not expected to know and understand the nuances of the law. He, however, categorically stated that he could recognize the driver of the offending four- F.A.O.No.913 of 1986 -3- .... wheeler if he came across of him. This witness was shown the photograph of Kanwar Singh which was available on the driving licence available on the file of the criminal case pending against him. He recognized that photograph to be of Kanwar Singh,driver of the offending vehicle. In any eventuality, the driver-Kanwar Singh was facing criminal prosecution after the police had challaned him even though he was evasive regarding the criminal proceedings when he appeared as RW1 in this case. It is evident from the statement of PW3-Anil Kumar that the file of the case pertaining to the prosecution of Kanwar Singh-driver was summoned and was shown to be pending. Those proceedings were pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. In this view of the matter, it would not be wrong to infer that the police, who had conducted an independent investigation, found the complicity of the driver-Kanwar Singh and the involvement of the vehicle being driven by him, in the accident. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid evidence is sufficient to hold that the offending vehicle was, indeed, involved in the accident. PW3-Anil Kumar further stated that the offending vehicle had come on the wrong side of the road to strike against their bicycle as a result of which the deceased lost his life. It was further stated by this witness that there was no indication of the approaching vehicle. Accordingly, it is held that driver-Kanwar Singh was negligent in driving the offending vehicle and causing the accident. The finding of the F.A.O.No.913 of 1986 -4- .... Tribunal in this regard is, therefore, set aside and it is held that four-wheeler bearing registration No.HRm-1992 was involved in the accident which had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver-Kanwar Singh. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the deceased was 16 years of age and was concededly not earning anything. However, keeping in view the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another Vesus Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 A.C.J. 99 wherein a boy of 13 years had died in an accident which took place on 2.7.1998, his notional income was taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum and a multiplier of `15' was adopted to allow a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to his parents, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would squarely be met if the notional income of the deceased in this case is taken as Rs.15000/- per annum and a multiplier of `15' is applied. Consequently, while doing so, the total compensation payable to the appellants-claimants is determined as Rs.2,25,000/-. The aforesaid amount is directed to be paid to the appellants- claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. It has come on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3-Oriental Insurance Company. Therefore, respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation and interest to the appellants. F.A.O.No.913 of 1986 -5- .... In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the claim petition as well as the appeal are accepted in the aforementioned terms. October 22,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge