FAO No.37 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.37 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ..Appellant Vs. Kirpal Singh Bedi and Ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present: Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma, J, Oral This appeal by the Insurance Company is against the award dated 5.10.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal). The claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming compensation on account of death of their son Gurpreet Singh who died in a motor vehicular accident on 19.11.2005 at about 2 PM near Petrol Pump Sector-3, Panchkula due to rash and negligent driving by respondent Satish Kumar while driving Mohindra Maxx Pick-Up No.HP-12-A-6142. Deceased along with his friends was travelling in Maruti Car FAO No.37 of 2010 2 bearing Registration No.PB-10-F-2929. The deceased was 19½ years of age at the time of accident and was working as part time teacher with M/s Seema (Prop.) City Tutorial Academy and was earning Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month. Insurance Company sought permission to contest the case under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was allowed. On appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal held that deceased Gurdeep Singh Bedi died in a motor vehicular accident on 19.11.2005 on account of rash and negligent driving of Mohindra Maxx Pick-Up No.HP-12-A-6142 by respondent No.1 and keeping in view the income and dependency, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,42,500/- (Rupees two lacs forty two thousand and five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. Costs were also allowed. Mr.D.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the plea, that it was not proved, that the vehicle which was insured with the appellant was involved in the accident, as the witnesses examined named a truck, and it was only in supplementary statement that the jeep in question was said to be involved in the accident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, was that the learned Tribunal erred in law in accepting the evidence led by the claimants in support of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the order, vide which PW 3 Ankus FAO No.37 of 2010 3 Sharma was permitted to be re-examined. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted as the learned Tribunal is not strictly bound by the rules of procedure, being a beneficial legislature can take into consideration the evidence which advances the object. No fault can be found with the re- examination of Ankus Sharma for seeking clarification. The contention of the learned counsel is repelled. Even otherwise, it is always open to the court to examine a witness already examined to find out the truth so as to arrive at a just decision. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this was done to fill up lacunae cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the compensation awarded on the plea that it was on the higher side, and that, the multiplier was wrongly applied. This plea also deserves to be rejected as it is not open to the Insurance Company to challenge the award on merit. Nothing has been pointed out if there was any violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy. Finding no merit in this appeal it is ordered to be dismissed in limine. (Vinod K.Sharma) 11.01.2010 Judge rp