In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.745 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:10.3.2008 Guljar Singh and another .....Appellants v. Bikar Singh and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the award dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (`Tribunal' – for short) whereby the petition filed by the claimants-respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' – for short) has been accepted. The claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.2 Lacs which has been awarded against the appellants jointly and severally along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. The compensation has been ordered to be paid to the claimants in equal share in cash. The accident took place on 14.4.2006 when Sukhpreet Singh (deceased) was coming on a bicycle from his fields to give milk. He had reached near Modi Petrol Pump where his uncle Jagrup Singh was present with his canter vehicle loaded with wheat. Said Jagrup Singh was going to Mandi Ratia along with one Mithu son of Desh Raj. At that time a Ford tractor (offending vehicle) along with trolley came from the side of HAFED. F.A.O. No.745/2008 [2] It was being driven by its driver Guljar Singh (appellant No.1) in a rash and negligent manner. On the bridge side a truck was going to HAFED. The tractor driver (appellant No.1) tried to save himself and in the process he turned the tractor on his right side to the berm of the canal. As a result of this the tractor dashed against the bicycle of Sukhpreet Singh (deceased) who died at the spot. Jagrup Singh lodged FIR with the Police against the driver of the offending tractor. The learned Tribunal held that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2 Lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the accident in question is not held to be proved. He has referred to the cross-examination of Jagrup Singh (PW-1) who is the uncle of the deceased Sukhpreet Singh and the eye witness to the occurrence. It is contended that Jagrup Singh (PW-1) has not given the name of the driver of the offending vehicle or the number of the offending vehicle in the FIR that was lodged by him. It is also stated that even in the deposition made in Court also the number of the offending vehicle has not been given. This is, it is contended, despite the fact it has come in evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle was known to him. In any case, it is contended that the compensation of Rs.2 Lacs that has been awarded is on the higher side. He has referred to the case of Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and others, 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 168 (SC). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel. However, I find no merit in the same. The learned F.A.O. No.745/2008 [3] Tribunal has considered the evidence and material on record and reached the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Reliance has been placed on the affidavit Ex.PW-1/A deposed by Jagrup Singh. In the cross-examination, Jagrup Singh has stated that he knew the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor Ford and his name was Guljar Singh. It is also stated that he disclosed the name of the driver of the tractor to the Police at the time of lodging FIR. He had come to know the name of the driver of the tractor from the gate pass of HAFED. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the name of the driver of the offending vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR is inconsequential as the FIR has not been exhibited on record. The statement given by Jagrup Singh (PW-1) was not confronted with the statement on the basis of which FIR was registered. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the fact that the number of the offending vehicle was not given in the FIR or in the affidavit Ex.PW.1/A of Jagrup Singh. Jagrup Singh (PW-1) had identified the tractor which was Ford 3600 and the farmers and village people can well recognize the model of a tractor. The case of Ram Karan v. Zile Singh, (2001-3) PLR 125 (P&H) referred to by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned in the statement before the Court and not in the FIR. This was held to be an improvement. In the present case, as already noticed, the number of the offending vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR or in the deposition before the Court. Therefore, it is not a case of improvement. As regards the compensation, it was observed that the deceased F.A.O. No.745/2008 [4] was a school going child and he died at the age of 13 years. Therefore, a lump-sum amount of Rs.2 Lacs which was just compensation was awarded. In the case of Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and others (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, the compensation awarded to a 14 years child was Rs.1 Lac was held to be just. The said case was confined to its own facts. In the said case the deceased child was not observed to be school going. In the present case, it has come on record that the child was school going and was aged 13 years. In the circumstances, award of compensation of Rs.2 Lacs is just and proper. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 10, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No