IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 315 of 1991 Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 Hari Kishan and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Y.K.Sharma, Advocate. Versus Dharamvir and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Nemo. Respondent no.3 through Shri Vishal Chaudhari, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against award dated 29.11.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, `the Tribunal') in Case No. 49-MACT of 1989. The appellants are the parents of Narain Dutt Gautam, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident on 4.5.1989. They had filed a claim petition for grant of compensation. However, the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. It was observed by the Tribunal that no F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the accident in question and that the claim petition was filed after a lapse of six months. It was also noticed with reference to the facts as given out by PW4-Balbir Singh, who is real brother of the deceased, that the F.A.O.No.315 of 1991 -2- .... accident had attracted him to the spot immediately thereafter and that the driver had fled away for fear of being beaten up leaving the truck behind. However, the Tribunal disbelieved the version as given by the appellants on the premise that if the vehicle had been left behind, some body would have certainly noticed its number and would have reported the matter to the police and the F.I.R.would have been lodged. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the claim petition was lodged after a period of six months and in between, no attempt was made by the claimants to involve the police. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the award of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside as it has come in evidence that instantly after the accident when the deceased was taken to the hospital, a ruqa was sent to the police and the brother of the deceased was labouring under the impression that necessary formalities of lodging of the F.I.R. and consequent investigation must be under progress. He has, thus, sought to explain away the aspects which had weighed with the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.3- Insurance Company has contended that there was not an iota of evidence to suggest the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident and, therefore, the finding which has been returned by the Tribunal cannot be upset. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal is not justified. There is evidence on record to suggest that Exhibit P5, the F.A.O.No.315 of 1991 -3- .... ruqa, was sent promptly informing the police that the deceased was admitted in the hospital with injuries. The police apparently did not act on the ruqa. The deceased thereafter was referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. He is said to have breathed his last while on the way. The facts of the case reveal that the brother of the deceased was attracted to the spot immediately after the accident, but if at that time, he did not notice the number of the truck which was parked and abandoned by the driver, then it cannot be held against him for the reason that the prime concern for any relative, who sees a near one in an injured condition, would be to get him admitted in the hospital. He would have also been taken in by the fact that some body from the crowd would inform the police or at least the police would come to the hospital pursuant to the ruqa. Apparently, this never happened and the police never investigated the matter. This cannot, therefore, be held against the appellants as it is ostensibly a dereliction of duty on the part of the police, who did not care to follow up the matter even though they were informed promptly. It is also a settled principle of law that lodging of the F.I.R. is not a pre-requisite which has to be met before filing of a claim petition and that the proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of an enquiry and are not hostage to factors, such as lodging of the F.I.R. and non-mentioning of the vehicle number etc. Suffice it to say that if the claimants are able to prove that an accident had taken place with a motor vehicle in a manner which is short of proof required in a criminal case, then this fact has to be accepted. In the instant case, the appellants have been able to prove that F.A.O.No.315 of 1991 -4- .... an accident had occurred in which the deceased had lost his life and that the offending truck was involved therein. It may be noticed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal to testify otherwise, viz., to deny the involvement of his vehicle, which can also be construed as an adverse inference against him. Taking all these factors cumulatively together, it is held that the deceased died in an accident which was caused by offending truck bearing registration No. HRS-1417. The findings of the Tribunal are, therefore, reversed. In so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the deceased was said to be working as Veterinary Compounder, but there is no evidence to this effect. Exhibit P8 shows that he was employed, but the same was not proved in accordance with law, and was merely tendered in evidence. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this document. The deceased was 23-1/2 years old at the time of his death. Even if he was to be assessed as a labourer, he would have been earning at least Rs.900/- to Rs.1000/- per month. Therefore, his income is taken as Rs.900/- per month. He was survived by his parents. In view of this, a deduction of 1/3rd out of his monthly income is to be made on account of personal expenses for assessing the dependency of the appellants. Thus, the dependency comes to Rs.600/- per month, i.e., Rs.7200/- per annum. The multiplier of `17' deserves to be applied as the same is in accordance with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which is a guiding factor. F.A.O.No.315 of 1991 -5- .... In this way, the compensation works out to Rs.1,22,400 (7200 x 17). A sum of Rs.10,000/- is allowed on account of funeral expenses and another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.1,44,400/- is awarded to the appellants. They shall also be entitled to receive interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The owner, driver and insurance company of the offending truck, i.e., the respondents, shall be jointly as well as severally liable to pay the compensation and interest. In the result, the appeal is accepted and the impugned award is set aside. December 10,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge