FAO NO. 739 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 739 of 2009 Date of order: 31.10.2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd.Sirsa ..... Appellant Versus Sarabjit Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., questioning the award dated 03.11.2008 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Sirsa (for short 'the Tribunal') on the ground of quantum of compensation only. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant appeal are as under:- On 17.01.2007 Kulbir Singh started from Sirsa on a tractor bearing registration no.PB-43/5288. He was driving the same at moderate speed and on his left side of the road. When he was in the area of village Mithri, a canter bearing registration no.HR-29-GA/2677 driven by Manohar Lal came from the opposite side. Coming to the FAO NO. 739 of 2009 2 wrong side of the road, the said canter had hit the tractor, as a result of which Kulbir Singh suffered multiple injuries, which resulted in his death. Kulbir Singh was 28 years old at the time of his death. The claim petition brought under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') had been contested by the respondents on all usual pleas. The accident is denied to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent no.1. The claim petition is claimed to be bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the tractor. It was also claimed that the claim petition should have been brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether the accident in question had taken place on 17.01.2007 in the area of village Mithri, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa and Kulbir son of Gurjant Singh had died in this accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1 while driving canter no.HR-29-GA/2677 ?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any amount, if so what amount and from which of the respondents ?OPP 3- Whether the petition is not maintainable ?OPR FAO NO. 739 of 2009 3 4- Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPR 5- Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?OPR 6- Relief.” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,47,000/- in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, United India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. According to him, there was no evidence to support this finding. This is the only submission made on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. Before this submission could be replied by learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6, to whom alone notice was given of this appeal, I may myself consider the aspect. The question is as to whether a person who met with an accident while driving a tractor cannot be taken as earning Rs.3000/- per month. If he was a paid driver of the tractor, his salary could not come down below Rs.3000/- per month. Even if he was FAO NO. 739 of 2009 4 not a paid driver, his income can not be assessed below the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident. Therefore, I find no ground to hold that the finding of the Tribunal about the income of the deceased is in any way erroneous. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and consequently finding no ground to interfere with the impugned award, I dismiss the appeal. 31.10.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge