IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.6386-CII of 2009 and FAO. NO.1285 OF 2009 DATE OF ORDER: 19.3.2009 Ram Rattan ....Petitioner(s) Versus Smt Rajo Devi and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M.No.6386-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 17 days' in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1285 of 2009 Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner of the Truck bearing No.HR37/8859 (hereinafter to be referred as “offending vehicle”) challenging the award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants (widow & minor son) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,20,500/- was awarded in favour of the claimants on account of death of Jawala Ram @ Labh Singh (pillion rider on the motor-cycle) in a motor vehicular accident on 2.4.2006 with a direction that respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount from the insured respondent-appellant herein. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award while holding the appellant liable to pay FAO No.1285 of 2009 #2# compensation. He contends that although no registration number of the vehicle or the name of the driver is indicated in the FIR, still the learned Tribunal proceeded to connect the Truck (offending vehicle) only on the basis of color and make of the Truck got recorded in the contents of the FIR Ex.PC, by the eye-witness Raj Kumar (PW3). He further contends that the learned Tribunal recorded the finding that PW5-SI Karam Singh (I.O. in the case) found the involvement of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR- 37/8859, which was being driven by respondent No.1, at the time of accident whereas PW5 in his cross-examination, admitted that the case was transferred to him on 8.4.2006 and earlier Investigating Officer had mentioned in the case diary No.3 & 4 that Raj Kumar-PW3 and Chahar Singh Sarpanch had disclosed before him that the present accident was caused by the tipper bearing Registration No.HR-37/8859 but both of them do not disclose the source of information to him. Learned counsel contends that the appellant has been wrongly impleaded in this case. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW3 and PW4-Pawan Kumar (driver of motor-cycle bearing No.HR-03E/5704). Learned counsel argues that PW3-Raj Kumar (author of the FIR) deposed in his cross examination that a jeep driver, who was following the motor cycle, had stopped after seeing the accident and stayed there for two-four minutes and then he followed the offending vehicle whereas PW4-Pawan Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that the Jeep did not stop. It went off in routine, wherever they may be going and none asked the jeep driver to stop nor it stopped there. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant. and perusing FAO No.1285 of 2009 #3# the record, this court finds no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Tribunal in its award held that though in the FIR, registration number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned, however, its make and color and it being loaded with stones was definitely mentioned by the eye-witness (PW3-Raj Kumar), who had promptly lodged the FIR- Ex.PC and besides the fact that merely because registration number was not recorded in the FIR itself is not sufficient to non-suit the claimants in view of other corroborative evidence placed on record. Learned Tribunal further held that Goldi-driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 had not stepped into the witness box to deny negligent driving and no explanation has been given for his non-examination. Thus, adverse inference was drawn qua his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As per deposition of Ramesh Kumar- Addl. Ahlmad (PW6), it has been brought on record that respondent-driver Goldi is facing trial in the criminal case regarding the accident in question. With regard to the contention that source of information has not been disclosed by the police officers as to how the number of the offending vehicle came to their knowledge, it has come on record that besides the statement of PW3-Raj Kumar that a jeep driver, who chased the truck had disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle to the police, the driver of the offending vehicle, had suffered an extra judicial confession before one Babu Ram-PW7, the husband of the sarpanch of the village, to which said Goldi belonged. The said Babu Ram appeared as PW7 and proved the extra judicial confession Ex.PD. He also was the one, who had produced the driver-Goldi before the police. FAO No.1285 of 2009 #4# It has also come on record that the driver of the motor-cycle i.e PW4 Pawan Kumar, after the accident, had become unconscious and, therefore, the alleged contradictions in his statement viz-a-viz the other witness PW3-Raj Kumar, are not significant/material in the face of other reliable and cogent evidence brought on record, to shake the version of the claimants. In view of the above, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant to upset the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence are not sustainable. After taking into account the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month (as that of a labourer), the dependency was fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. The age of the deceased being 22 years, the multiplier of 12 was adopted. In total, a sum of Rs.2,20,500/- (Rs.1500 x 12 x 12=Rs.2,16,000/- plus Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate besides Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses) was awarded to the claimants with a direction to respondent No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation at the first instance while entitling it to recover the amount from the insured respondent. In my opinion, the compensation awarded is just and equitable. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned MACT, Ambala. No merit. Dismissed. March 19, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE