IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.1291/2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:18.3.2009. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. ..........Appellant Versus Kela Devi and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal,Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Co. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral) CM No.6404-CII/2009. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1291/2009. Appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal against the award dated 3.10.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby claim petition filed by Kela Devi and others i.e. widow, three minor daughters and aged parents of deceased Satbir Singh, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) was allowed and they were granted a total compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the compensation amount. The appellant being the insurer of the tractor,bearing registration no.HR-36-H 4426 (hereinafter FAO No.1291/2009 (O&M) -2- referred to as the offending vehicle) alongwith owner-cum-driver (respondent no.7 herein) were held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount. So far as the factum of accident, insurance of the vehicle, driver holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, 70% permanent disability suffered by the claimant as a result of the accident, have not been disputed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the insurance policy the risk of the occupants of the offending vehicle was not covered and as such the status of the deceased would be that of a gratuitous passenger not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Act. It is next contended that the compensation awarded is on higher side. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find no merit in these submissions of the learned counsel. It is not disputed that on the fateful day i.e. on the intervening night of 24/25.12.2006, deceased Satbir Singh alongwith his cousin Rajinder were transporting dry fodder from Village Khera Dabar to their Village Mandhiya Kalan, on the offending vehicle owned and driven by respondent no.7 herein. The driver of the offending vehicle, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and in zigzag manner was requested several times by the deceased and said Rajinder to drive it at a slow speed, but he did FAO No.1291/2009 (O&M) -3- not pay any heed to their advice. At about 4 a.m. when they reached in the area of Village Gokalpur, on account of rash and negligent driving at a high speed, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over it as a result of which the tractor turned turtle in which process the deceased was crushed under it and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. An FIR bearing No.139 dated 25.12.2006 was lodged by said Rajinder in this regard. Said Rajinder, an Eye witness and author of the FIR appeared in the witness box as PW3 and and reiterated the chain of events leading to the accident. Respondents could not shatter his testimony despite cross examination. On the other hand, respondent no.7,being the owner and driver and responsible for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving did not step into the witness box. Consequently, learned Tribunal drew an adverse inference against respondents. It stands proved on the record that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was being used for carrying dry fodder by its occupants and in that process rash and negligent driving by respondent no.7, claimed the life of deceased Satbir Singh. In my considered opinion, carrying dry fodder in a tractor is a part and parcel of the agricultural activities and, therefore, the deceased Satbir Singh and his cousin PW3 Rajinder cannot be described as gratuitous passengers. Further, on the basis of documentary evidence led by the parties, it was found by the learned Tribunal that perusal of photocopy of the cover note Ex.R1 produced by appellant insurance company, did not disclose that there FAO No.1291/2009 (O&M) -4- was any such endorsement on the cover note that the offending vehicle was insured only for agricultural purpose. That apart, even at the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has not produced any documentary evidence viz. copy of the insurance policy in support of his arguments. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned award so far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned. Regarding the quantum of dependency assessed by the learned Tribunal, it is not disputed that the deceased is survived by his widow, three minor daughters and aged parents. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly dependency @ Rs.2400/- and applied the multiplier of 15, as the deceased was just 40 years of age at the time of his death. In my opinion, the dependency arrived and multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is just and fair. No other point has been raised. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. The Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount of Rs.25,0000/- deposited by the appellant to the learned Executing Court for disbursement to the claimants. 18.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge