FAO No. 3418 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3418 of 1999 and Cross-Objection No.37-CII of 2005 Date of decision: 30.8.2011 Pawan Kumar and Another Appellants v. Chander Mukhi and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta,Advocate for the appellants Mr.Neeraj Khanna,Advocate for the Insurance Company, Mr.Y.P.Malik,Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5 .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Award dated 30.8.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani. Brief facts of the case are that Prithvi Singh, deceased was coming from Bhiwani as a passenger, in Jeep No. HR-23-8883 being driven by Kuldeep Singh,driver. When the jeep neared Power House in village Prem Nagar, a truck bearing registration No. HR-39-4026 being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the right side of the jeep and in the accident, Prithvi Singh sustained injuries. While being taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 4 dated 1.1.1997 was registered. Written statements were filed by the respondents, owners and FAO No. 3418 of 1999 2 drivers of the jeep and truck. They denied the accident and blamed each other for the alleged accident. Respondent No.3, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (insurer of Truck No. HR-39-4026) filed a written statement and took the stand that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. FIR was wrongly lodged against the driver of the truck. The driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence and it was driven without authority and control of the owner, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy being overloaded with passengers. Respondent No.6 (insurer of Jeep No. HR-23-8883) took the stand that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of driver of the Jeep. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-39-4026 by Pawan Kumar, respondent NO.1?OPP 2. Whether Prithvi Singh died in a motor vehicle accident and petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the truck in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?OPR 4. Whether the petition is mis-joinder for necessary parties? OPR” After appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Ld. Tribunal accepted the claim petition of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,43,000/-. Respondents No. 1 & 2 (driver and owner of truck No. HR- 39-4026) were liable jointly and severally to pay the amount. Aggrieved against the Award dated 30.8.1999, the appellants (driver and owner of the truck) filed the present appeal. During the course of hearing, this Court on 3.3.2011 ordered that the vehicle involved in the FAO No. 3418 of 1999 3 accident was admittedly a truck that did not belong to the category of light motor vehicle. The Insurance Company was directed to verify the details furnished in the document to be produced as additional evidence. In pursuance of that order, the Insurance Company has furnished the verification report that the driving licence held by Pawan Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, was found to be genuine. The said report is placed on record as mark “A”. In view of the verification report, it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall idemnify the Award in question. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 (claimants) has pointed out that the Ld. Tribunal has applied a cut of 1/3rd on account of dependency of the deceased, which is contrary to law as per law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another 2009 (6) SC Cases 121. He further states that the amounts of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral charges; Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of estate are also not adequate. The deceased left behind his wife and four children, and as per law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the cut applied should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants. This Court feels that the ends of justice would be met if a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is enhanced towards all the three heads. In view of the above, the Award 30.8.1999 is modified to that extent. The amount of Rs. 28,800/- ( this figure arrived after applying a cut FAO No. 3418 of 1999 4 of 1/4th to the annual income of deceased, Prithvi Singh), plus Rs. 20,000/- a total sum of Rs. 48,800/- shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal till its realization. The Cross-objection No.37-CII of 2005, as well as the appeal stand disposed of. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 30.8.2011 JUDGE MS