IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1418 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:03.01.2011 Shri Krishan and others ....Appellants versus Hassan Khan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.B.R.Vohra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. None for respondents 1, 2 and 4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the remedy of the claimants would be to approach the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act since the driver-deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It was a case of collision between two trucks, one of which was being driven by the deceased having registration No.9924, while the other truck, which had been insured with the National Insurance Company, had registration No.4825. PW1 was said to be a driver of another vehicle following the truck bearing FAO No.1418 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - registration No.4825 and in his evidence, he said in chief examination that the driver of the truck bearing registration No.9924 was driving the vehicle in a zigzag manner. He also gave evidence, however, that it was the driver of the truck bearing registration No.4825 that was responsible for the accident. It appears that the criminal case itself had been registered only against the driver of the truck bearing registration No.9924, but later the criminal case abated on account of his death. PW2 was the Cleaner travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No.9924 and he gave evidence that it was the driver of the truck bearing registration No.4825, who was responsible for the accident and that the driver fled away from the place soon after the accident. Significantly, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.4825 himself was not examined to contradict the evidence of PW2. Since it is a case of collision between two vehicles, one against the another coming from opposite direction, I will accord an equal liability for the accident and find that the deceased himself was guilty of contributory negligence and the liability must be apportioned as 50:50. 2. The deceased was a bachelor and the claimants were the parents. I will take the contribution to the family as Rs.1,500/- and take the annual dependence at Rs.18,000/-. I will adopt a multiplier of 13 as applicable to the age of the parents and find the loss of dependence at Rs.2,34,000/-. I will add Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the parents and another Rs.5,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. I will provide also an additional amount of Rs.6,000/- and round off the amount of claim to Rs.2,50,000/-. Since I have already FAO No.1418 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - found the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, this will constitute an abatement of 50% and the amount that will become payable would be Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the National Insurance Company which was the insurer for the truck bearing registration No.4825. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.01.2011 sanjeev