FAO No. 543 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.543 of 1987 Decided on : 26-11-2008 Smt. Geeta Rani and another ....Appellants VERSUS Sadhu Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Piyush Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 9.4.1987. Parmod Kumar lost his life in an accident which took place on 5.5.1985. He died on 27.8.85 after having remained admitted in hospital for three months. FIR was registered on 16.6.1985 on the statement of Parmod Kumar. Claim petition was preferred by mother and brother of the deceased which was negatived by the Tribunal by returning a finding that the claimants have failed to prove the accident with the offending vehicle. While assailing the findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the record and stated that the accident had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. FIR was registered on the statement FAO No. 543 of 1987 2 of the deceased himself. Even though he did not give out the number, the same was given out during the testimony of the eye witness of the accident who was accompanying the deceased on foot. He further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had also faced criminal prosecution which itself is sufficient to hold that the vehicle was involved in the accident. It was thus pleaded that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is wrong. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The deceased could not give out the number of the vehicle and the fact that the FIR was registered almost around one month after the accident shows that case set up by the claimants is false. It was also submitted that there were material discrepancies in the statements of the eye witnesses and also the statement of the deceased and therefore no reliance could be placed on the version given out by the claimants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry and the Tribunal is not required to search for conclusive proof to establish the factum of accident. In the case in hand the deceased was injured in an accident on 5.5.85. He remained admitted in hospital before he died. Statement was recorded by the police on the basis of FIR which was registered on 16.6.1985. The fact that his statement was recorded truthfully can be inferred from the fact that vehicle number was not given in the FIR. Had there been any attempt to concoct the version in the FIR the number of vehicle could have easily slipped into the version. That apart it is on record in the testimony of the driver of the offending vehicle himself that he was proceeded against in the criminal Court of law and that he was FAO No. 543 of 1987 3 facing prosecution for the accident. Even though it is not conclusive proof of the involvement of the vehicle in the accident but in the cases before the Tribunal which are primarily meant to determine the compensation and grant relief to the accident victims, this is a sufficient indicator to establish that the vehicle was involved in the accident. Besides the owner and driver of the offending vehicle had put denial simpliciter as a defence. No report of the mechanic was produced to show that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court keeping in view the fact that eye witness had given the number of offending vehicle and fact that the driver was facing criminal prosecution is sufficient to hold that the vehicle bearing no.DEP 5965 was involved in the accident. Now the next question that has to be determined is whether the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the aforesaid vehicle. The FIR is registered on the basis of the statement of the deceased himself. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the version as given by him. It is, therefore, held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the offending vehicle being driven by Sadhu Singh. The last question that is to be determined now is the quantum of compensation that should be awarded to the appellants. The claim petition was preferred by the mother and the brother of the deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that the brother was dependent upon the deceased and therefore, the claim petition by him is not maintainable and it is held that he is not entitled to any compensation. The deceased was said to be working as Salesman in a shop in Delhi and earning Rs.1000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed his income as Rs. 500/- per month and FAO No. 543 of 1987 4 dependency as Rs.150/- per month. Multiplier of 15 was applied to arrive at a compensation of Rs. 26,000/-. Rs. 20,000/- was awarded on account of medical treatment and the deceased incurred while being admitted to the hospital for three months. After evaluating the entire record, I am of the considered opinion that the award which Tribunal made while assessing the compensation in the aforesaid manner is inadequate. The deceased was a young man aged between 26 to 27 years. In the year 1985, a casual labourer might be earning Rs. 1000/- per month but it is also an admitted fact that regular employment would not be available to him everyday, therefore, it would be safe to assess his income as Rs. 800/- per month. A cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses would be just and adequate in the given set of circumstances. Dependency in this manner comes to Rs. 533/- per month which is rounded off to Rs. 535/- per month i.e. Rs.6420/- per annum. Multiplier of 18 would be just and appropriate which is in accordance with the Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. In this manner, compensation comes to Rs. 1,15,560/-. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- which has been awarded on account of the medical expenses does not warrant any interference. Rs. 20,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,55,560/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid only to the mother of deceased alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. FAO No. 543 of 1987 5 The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. November 26 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge