F.A.O.NO. 4427 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 4427 OF 2002 Date of decision:17th September, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Kaushalya Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company, which had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to join issues of negligence, quantum as well as on the involvement of the vehicle itself. 2. The claimants sought to prove the involvement of the insured's vehicle through the evidence of one Mangat Ram PW-2 who was alleged to have known the driver of the tractor and that he chased the driver to some distance but he had sped away from scene F.A.O.NO. 4427 OF 2002 2 with his tractor after the accident. The fact of the death of the deceased in motor accident cannot itself be denied. The First Information Report revealed that there was an involvement of the tractor but no registration number or the name of the driver had been given. Assistant Sub Inspector, Police lines, Kurukshetra, examined as PW-3 who gave evidence to the effect that he had investigated the criminal case and recorded the statement of Mangat Ram and Dalel Singh and he had prepared a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charging the driver Madan Lal as the person involved in the accident. The evidence of PW-3 was assailed in the cross examination as a fabricated version as he had not recorded the statement of witnesses. The driver himself was examined as RW-2 and he denied the accident. PW-3 was a person whose evidence was to the effect that he had taken the deceased to the hospital from the spot. The Tribunal took the fact that the case having been registered and a reference to the involvement of the tractor in the FIR as further corroborative factors to believe the version of Mangat Ram PW-2. The standard of proof that would be necessary in an action before the Tribunal, is not to be adjudged by the same parameters as a criminal case is done. The Tribunal found evidence to be sufficient to find the involvement of the vehicle. The judgment is well reasoned and I find no reason to interfere in the same and I affirm the award of the Tribunal. 4. As regards the quantum, the amount awarded is just, F.A.O.NO. 4427 OF 2002 3 where the Tribunal had taken extent of dependence to be at Rs. 2,000/- per month, adopted a multiplier of 16 to a case where a deceased was less than 30 years of age. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 17th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik