IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.5542-CII of 2009, C.M.No.5543-CII of 2009 and FAO No.1180 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 5.3.2009 Davinder Pal Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M.No.5542-CII of 2009 This is an application for condonation of 14 days' delay in re- filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 14 days' in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.5543-CII of 2009 and FAO No.1180 of 2009 (O&M) This appeal has been filed by the Lrs of the deceased owner of the offending vehicle i.e Truck bearing No.PAT 4743 for setting aside the award dated 13.8.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur whereby respondent No.3- Insurance Company has been absolved from its liability to pay compensation because of the fact that the Insurance Policy was proved to be a forged and fabricated one. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the award against the appellants on the ground that the Insurance Policy Ex.AX produced before the learned Tribunal is a FAO No.1180 of 2009 (O&M) #2# forged and fabricated document. He contends that the said Insurance Policy, in fact, has been issued under the signatures of the Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office Howrah (West Bengal). Learned counsel further contends that the vehicle in question possesses a National Permit and the same can be insured anywhere in India. He also submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side as well as the multiplier applied is also beyond the schedule. From the evidence produced on record, learned Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and the Insurance Policy placed on the file is a forged and fictitious document and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In order to prove that the Insurance Policy Ex.AX was a forged and fabricated one, Insurance Company examined one S.P. Sarkar-RW1, who, on the basis of record, deposed that the offending vehicle was never insured with their Calcutta Branch and it never received the alleged premium. Moreover, neither the original Insurance Policy nor the original cover note were placed on record by the appellants. To rebut the evidence led by the Insurance Company, appellants failed to produce any evidence, which may show that the Insurance Policy was not a forged and fabricated document but instead was a valid document. The deceased in this case was a housewife, aged 22 years and was working as a Tailor. She is survived by her husband and a minor son of 3 years of age. The worth of service rendered by her towards the entire family was fixed at Rs.2000 per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum and after applying a multiplier of 15, total compensation came to be Rs.3,60,000/-. Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, love and affection and FAO No.1180 of 2009 (O&M) #3# funeral expenses. Thus, claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- as compensation to be recovered from the driver and owners of the offending vehicle whereas the claim petition was dismissed against the Insurance Company. The dependency as well as the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side by any stretch of imagination. Besides, the appeal lacking merit, it is also barred by limitation as it has been filed after a delay of 424 days. The grounds taken for condoning the delay are that the appellants could not file the appeal earlier as their counsel had informed them that the appeal stood dismissed qua them. This explanation on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The appellants were represented by their counsel. If they did not care to get the copy of the award immediately after the decision of the claim petition pending, they cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own folly. Therefore, the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause whatsoever to condone the appeal of 424 days, which is inordinate delay. Application bearing C.M.No.5543-CII of 2009 stands dismissed accordingly. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Dismissed. March 05, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE