IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1084 and 1130 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2009 (FAO No.1084 of 1987) Balbir Singh and another ......Appellant(s) Versus Manjit Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) (FAO No.1130 of 1987) Nachittar Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Mukhtiar Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Nirmal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This judgment of mine shall dispose of FAO Nos.1084 of 1987 and FAO No.1130 of 1987 which have arisen out of one common award dated 14.8.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that on 8.10.1985 one Thakur Singh son of Balbir Singh resident of Duladdi and Gurbinder Singh of the same village were going on foot from Nabha to village Duladdi. Sarwan Singh son of Sunder Singh was following them. They were going on the left side of the road at about 9 P.M. When they reached near Durga Rice Factory, Nachittar Singh alias Mithu (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) came from behind on motor cycle No.PBY-1172 belonging to Vasdev Gargas son of Chhaju Ram (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal). The aforesaid Nachittar Singh was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently which hit against Thakur Singh as a result of which he received multiple injuries. Nachittar Singh went away on the motor cycle after the accident. Thakur Singh was taken in a tractor trolley in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Nabha. Thereafter, he was referred to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. After two days of his admission in Rajendra Hospital, Patiala , Thakur Singh succumbed to his injuries. Balbir Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur (appellants in FAO No.1084 of 1987) are the parents of aforesaid Thakur Singh deceased. Manjit Kaur- respondent No.1 and Monia-respondent No.2 in the aforesaid appeal are the widow and daughter of Thakur Singh respectively. All of them were dependent upon Thakur Singh during his lifetime. Thakur Singh was aged about 22 years at the time of death. The motorcycle involved in the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company. Hence, the claim petition for the grant of compensation on account of death of Thakur Singh in the motor vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Nachittar Singh. Nachittar Singh and Vasdev Gargas, driver and owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim application by filing joint written statement stating therein that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle, further submitting that the respondent-Nachittar Singh was not driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. The National Insurance Company-respondent No.3 before the Tribunal also contested the claim application denying its liability to pay any compensation. It was submitted by the Insurance Company that no accident had taken place with the motorcycle. It was also pleaded that if any liability is found, it is limited to the extent as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Policy. It was pleaded on behalf of the aforesaid respondents that the claim petition be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether Thakur Singh deceased was killed in automobile accident involving motor cycle No.PBV-1172 belonging to respondent Vasdev Gargas on 8.10.1985 on Nabha-Malerkotla Road in the area of village Duladdi on account of rash and negligent driving by said Motor cycle by respondent Nachattar Singh? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are dependent of Thakur Singh deceased? OPP. 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, and from which of the respondents are the petitioners entitled?OPP. 4. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that Thakur Singh died in motor vehicular accident involving motor cycle No.PBV-1172 belonging to respondent-Vasdev Gargas on 8.10.1985 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-Nachittar Singh. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the appellants in FAO No.1084 of 1987 i.e. Balbir Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, parents of the deceased, were not entitled to any compensation as they were not dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased. Under Issue No.3, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,200/- as compensation to Manjit Kaur and Monia i.e wife and daughter of deceased (respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No.1084 of 1987) on account of Thakur Singh's death in the motor vehicular accident. The liability to pay compensation was held to be of driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally. FAO No.1084 of 1987 has been filed by Balbir Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur challenging the impugned award on the ground that findings of the Tribunal that they were not dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased are erroneous and further that the inadequate compensation has been granted whereas FAO No.1130 of 1987 has been filed jointly by the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the grant of compensation to respondents i.e Manjit Kaur and Monia wife and daughter of deceased Thakur Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Balbir Singh while appearing as AW-1 in support of his case has stated that wife and daughter of Thakur Singh were dependent upon him during his lifetime and he has no where stated that he himself and his wife Mukhtiar Kaur were also dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased. It also came on record that Balbir Singh was owner of 80 Bighas of land. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the Balbir Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur cannot be held to be dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased and they were not entitled to any compensation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid appellants in FAO No.1084 of 1987 was unable to point out any material evidence on record on the basis of which findings of the Tribunal on issue No.2 could be challenged. In fact, there is no other evidence on the basis of which the appellants can be held to be dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased. Since the appellants were not dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased, therefore, in the absence of any appeal on behalf of the other claimants, the inadequacy of the compensation cannot be raised in this appeal. Thus, I find no merit in FAO No.1084 of 1987. Now taking up FAO No.1130 of 1987, it may be seen that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact under issue No.1 after appreciating the evidence on record that the motor cycle No.PBV-1172 belonging to appellant No.2 was involved in the accident which was being driven by appellant No.1 rashly and negligently and due to which Thakur Singh suffered multiple injuries and later on died. A perusal of the findings on this issue would show that Gurbinder Singh AW-5, who is an eye witness of the occurrence, has fully supported the case of the claimants. There is nothing on record to discard the testimony of the aforesaid witness in any manner. Thus, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. The findings on other issues were not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. It is relevant to point out here that admittedly the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and in fact except the ground that the aforesaid motorcycle was not involved in the accident, no other worthwhile objection had been taken by the appellant- Insurance Company in their defence. Moreover, no such ground which is available in accordance with law to the appellant-Insurance Company to challenge the award has been raised. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, I find no merit in this appeal also. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals fail and they are ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs. August 28, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE