FAO No. 235 of 2011 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 235 of 2011 Date of decision 14.01.2011 United India Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Versus Babli Devi and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. 1. The United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinreferred to as the appellant) has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 10.09.2010 passed in "Babli Devi versus Satwinder Singh and another" by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ropar by which Bimla Devi claimant was allowed a compensation of Rs.5,17,000/- on account of death of Surjit Singh. 2. Brief facts are that on 15.9.2009 the deceased was driving his motorcycle No.PB-10AV-923 with proper care and caution at a normal speed and one Gaurav was sitting on the pillion seat. When the deceased reached the railway crossing, at about 12.30 p.m. the Esteem Car bearing registration No.PB-10-X-0441 driven by Satwinder Singh. The respondent No.1 on the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of the deceased. It was coming on the wrong side of the road. Both the riders fell down on the road and received injuries. Surjit Singh deceased received head injury. The FAO No. 235 of 2011 2 injured were taken to civil hospital Anandpur Sahib. Surjit Singh being in serious condition was referred to PGI Chandigarh, but he died on the same day. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Satwinder Singh- respondent. FIR No.124 dated 15.9.2009 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC was registered on the statement of Gaurav at Police Station Anandpur Sahib. The deceased was JCB operator with M/s Nanda Earth Mover, Anandpur Sahib and was getting Rs.8000/- per month as his salary. The claimant-mother was dependent upon the deceased. She has lost love and affection of her son. 3. The claimant claimed compensation on account of death of Surjit Singh in vehicular accident. 4. The respondent No.1 owner-cum-driver of the car contested the petition and denied the accident. The appellant insurance company contested the claim petition on the ground that the owner driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was further pleaded in the written statement by the insurance company that the offending vehicle was not having a valid route permit, RC and fitness certificate at the time of accident. It was also pleaded that the claim petition has been filed inclusion with the owner. 5. From the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Surjit Singh son of Ajaib Singh died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 15.9.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. in the area near Gurdwara Kali Holgarh, GT road Agampur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, due to rash and negligent driving of Car No.PB-10-X-0441 by respondent No.1? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of Surjit Singh deceased?OPP FAO No. 235 of 2011 3 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation on account of death of Surjit Singh? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and valid route permit or fitness certificate of the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect? OPR 5. Whether the claim petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR in the present form? OPR 6. While deciding issue no.3 it was held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,17,000/-. While deciding issue no.1 it was held that on 15.9.2009 Satwinder Singh, owner-cum-driver while driving the car in rash and negligent manner caused the accident in which Surjit Singh had died. 7. The counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on higher side. The claimant is the mother of the deceased so the dependency cannot be taken more than ½ of the income of the dependency. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that multiplier of 14 is also wrong. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal has no power in granting penal interest if the appellant does not deposit the amount within a stipulated period. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the able assistance of the counsel for the appellant-insurance company. 9. The impugned award is a well-reasoned award, there is no legal or factual error in the impugned award. The proceedings in the claim FAO No. 235 of 2011 4 petition are of summary nature. The registration of FIR No.124 dated 15.9.2009 under Sections 289, 337 and 304-A IPC registered on the statement of Gaurav at Police Station, Anandpur Sahib against the owner- cum-driver prima facie proof that the owner-cum-driver was rash and negligent in driving vehicle. The plea of the insurance company that the claimant is not LR of the deceased is not available to it in view of judgment Oriental Fire Vs. Rambha Barrick 1989 ACJ: 972. The learned counsel strongly argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no power to award penal interest. The perusal of Section 171 shows that the Tribunal has power to award simple interest on compensation. It is social legislation and in order to ensure that the award of the Tribunal is complied with a little higher interest in case of default has been awarded but it is not a penal interest. Even otherwise also under the Act the Tribunal is fully empowered to award simple interest as it deems fit on the awarded compensation. 10. There is no ground to interfere in the award of the Tribunal so the appeal is dismissed in limine. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 14.01.2011 JUDGE Jyoti 1 Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No