FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : December 04, 2009 Gurdeep Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS Gorkha Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Suresh Goel, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Gurdeep Kumar – appellant has assailed the award dated 24.9.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Barnala (herein referred as `the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in favour of the claimant – respondent Gorkha Singh (herein referred as `the claimant') on account of the death 2 months 24 days' old calf in a motor vehicle accident. Brief resume of facts is that on 4.9.2006, the claimant along with his brother Manpreet Singh took a mare and her calf from his house and while they were going on the katcha path on the passage to Bihla, at about 6.45 AM, Manpreet Singh while riding the mare was going ahead of FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] the claimant and was accompanied by the calf. In the meantime, the appellant while driving an Indica Car bearing Reg.No.DL2CM-5918 rashly and negligently came from the side of village Diwana and struck the calf, as a result of which the calf died at the spot. Consequently, the claimant sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on account of the sudden termination of the life of the calf. The claim petition was contested and the appellant (therein the respondent) denied all the allegations. However, he explained that the accident had taken place all of a sudden. The calf was running after the mare, going ahead of her and the person accompanying the calf could not control the animal. As such, the accident took place per chance on account of the fault on the part of the person, accompanying the calf. He also denied if the claimant was owner of the calf. Finding the parties at variance, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether filly equine (female calf) of Breed Marwari (Nukri) owned by Gorkha Singh died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 4.9.2006 on account of rash and negligent driving of car No.DL2CM-5918 by respondent No.1 Mandeep Kumar? 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what extent? 3. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] was partly accepted and a sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 6% was awarded to the claimant. No meaningful argument has been advanced to establish if the accident did not take place on account of the fault on the part of the appellant. The claimant, who was accompanying the calf has categorically deposed that on the relevant date, when he along with his brother Manpreet Singh was taking the mare and calf to their house and when they reached on the `periphery' of the village, the appellant while driving his Indica Car rashly and negligently struck his car against the calf, as a result of which, the calf died at the spot. Consequently, FIR No.63 dated 4.9.2006 under Sections 279/429 IPC was registered at Police Station Bhadaur against the appellant qua his negligence. Consequently, the appellant was challaned. Even the FIR bears the name of the driver of the offending vehicle and the contents of the said FIR are in consonance with the statement of claimant Gorkha (PW1). There is no evidence to rebut these allegations. The appellant has failed to bring any cogent evidence on the record in order to establish that he was not at fault. As regards the other argument with regard to the quantum of compensation, no doubt, the doctor at the time of the post mortem examination of the calf evaluated her to be worth Rs.40,000/-, but this evaluation is not based on any data or formula. Be that as it may, the said evaluation was regarding a strong healthy young calf, who could turn into a mare to produce more calves, but the claimant has not asked any question if the calf, so killed in the accident, was quite healthy and fit and fertile to procure more calves. FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M) [ 4 ] The other aspect for not wholly relying upon the statement of Dr.Missar Singh, Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Chananwal (PW2), is that he came at the instance of the claimant and testified about the value of the calf, without any data or basis. Any way, while believing the statement that he evaluated on the assumption that it was a healthy without verifying the same and when there is no evidence that it was quite fit and healthy animal, the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 deserve to be modified qua its price to Rs.25,000/- Resultantly, the appeal is partly accepted and the compensation is reduced to Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition, till realisation. December 04, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE