IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 859 of 1991 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 Shishpal. ....... Appellant through Shri Adarsh Jain, Advocate. Versus Harbhajan Singh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Nemo. Respondent no.3 through Shri Neeraj Khanna, 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 is an appeal directed against award / judgment dated 24.10.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, `the Tribunal') in Petition No.46 of 1989. Neelam Kumari, daughter of the appellant lost her life in a motor vehicular accident which had taken place on 19.9.1989. She was aged about 14 years. The offending vehicle was a truck bearing registration No.HRB-775. A claim petition was filed by the appellant for grant of compensation on account of death of Neelam Kumari. It was stated therein F.A.O.No.859 of 1991 -2- .... that the accident was witnessed by two persons, namely, Bhana (PW2) and Rajbir (PW3). After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was also negligent as she was walking in the middle of the road at the time of accident. Since the death of Neelam Kumari had taken place in an accident involving a motor vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant under the principle of `no fault liability'. Feeling dis-satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal as regards the negligence is erroneous. There are photographs on record which show that the dead body of Neelam Kumari was lying on the kucha portion of the road. She was on foot and was hit by the truck in question. PW2 and PW3 have stated that the truck was being driven at a fast speed. PW3 has further stated that the deceased was walking on the kucha side of the road and truck had hit her. Although PW2, in his cross-examination on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, has stated that the deceased was walking in the middle of the road, but that does not appear to be correct as her body was lying on the kucha portion of the road and there is consistent evidence to show that the right wheel of the truck in question passed over the body of the deceased. In view of the fact that the photographs clearly reveal that the F.A.O.No.859 of 1991 -3- .... dead body was lying on the kucha portion of the road, which is also borne out from the testimony of PW3, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has gone wrong in recording a finding that the driver of the truck in question was not negligent in causing the accident. Accordingly, it is held that the truck driver, who was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, is guilty of causing the accident in which the deceased was killed and the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is set aside. In so far as the compensation is concerned, the observations of the Tribunal that the deceased was unmarried girl and financially she was a burden on her parents cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another Versus Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 A.C.J. 99. In that case, their Lordships awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the parents of deceased boy, aged 13 years, by taking the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by applying a multiplier of `15'. In the instant case, the deceased was 14 years old at the time of accident. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the appellant is granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation on account of death of his daughter-Neelam Kumari. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under `no fault liability' will be adjustable towards the aforesaid amount of compensation. He will also get 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 respondents shall be jointly as well as severally liable to F.A.O.No.859 of 1991 -4- .... pay the compensation and interest to the appellant. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 11,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge