FAO No.936 of 1993(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Cross Objections No.70-CII of 1993 and Nos.27, 28 and 35-CII of 1994 FAO No.936 of 1993 (O&M) National Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant VERSUS Roshan Lal and others ... Respondents Decided on : April 19, 2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate for the claimant – Cross-objector None for the driver/owner – Cross-objectors. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This is an appeal against the award dated 13.3.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (herein referred as `the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,15,200/- for the accidental death of Ramesh Singh, which took place on 4.3.1991 in the area of village Bhogpur. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Randhir Singh – respondent No.3, who while driving the truck bearing Reg.No.HIA-6655 could not control the same and resultantly, it over- turned. Ramesh Singh, who was sitting in the truck as paid worker, was crushed under the body of the truck. His parents – respondents No.1 and 2 FAO No.936 of 1993(O&M) [2] filed a claim petition. The claim petition was contested and on pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent – Randhir Driver of truck No.HIA 6655? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment on account of the pleas taken in the written-statement? OPR 4. Relief.” While holding the negligence of respondent No.3 Randhir Singh, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants. Since no evidence was led by the Insurance Company and no arguments were addressed on its behalf to support this issue, therefore, issue No.3 was also decided against the appellant. Consequently, after appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,15,200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation of the amount. Aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. The claimants have also filed the cross objections for enhancement of compensation. Similarly, the owner and driver have also filed the cross-objections to absolve themselves from FAO No.936 of 1993(O&M) [3] the liability to pay compensation. Arguments heard. Record perused. The Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective, while determining the negligence of Randhir – respondent No.3 in the commission of the accident. As regards the question that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable, I do not find any merit in this submission as it has come in evidence that the deceased was a paid worker on the offending truck, as such, he cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger. Notwithstanding the fact that the Company could not challenge the quantum of compensation in view of the bar created under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal does not appear to have awarded compensation on the higher side. Counsel for the claimants while arguing the cross-objections has urged that since the deceased was an unmarried son and was fetching Rs.50/- per day, therefore, his income could not be assessed less Rs.1500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of this amount towards self dependency, the dependency towards the claimants comes to Rs.1000/- per month. Having pondered over the contention, I do not find any merit in the same. The deceased was a daily wager, admittedly earning Rs.50/- per day. It is not certain that a daily wager will get the work regularly, and in the present case, the deceased was 18/19 years old at the time of accident, as such, keeping all the facts in mind, the Tribunal rightly assessed the dependency at Rs.600/- per month and applied the multiplier of `16' taking FAO No.936 of 1993(O&M) [4] into consideration that the claimants were in their forties at that time. Thus, the order of the Tribunal on the quantum of compensation being quite fair and reasonable does not need any interference. So far as the findings returned by the Tribunal with regard to the liability of the driver and owner (respondents – cross-objectors) are concerned, the same are also based on proper appreciation of the law and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal as well as the Cross- objections, the same are hereby dismissed. April 19, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE