F.A.O.No.1630 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.1630 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision 29.10.2009 United India Insurance Company Limited ...... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Santosh Kumari and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr.Rajesh Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The issues with regard to rashness, negligence and the quantum of compensation were raised by the appellant-United India Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') by assailing the award dated 03.03.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (herein referred as 'the Tribunal), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.14,47,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of respondents No.1 to 3-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 jointly and severally, on account of the death of Chander Parkash, aged about 52 years in a motor vehicular accident. Brief Resume of facts is that on 06.07.2005 in the morning, deceased Chander Parkash had left for his office on foot situated at F.A.O.No.1630 of 2008 2 Fatehabad-Bhattu road. He was also accompanied by one Ghansham Dass, who was also to go to his shop, located on the same side. When they reached in front of Gulnar Cinema, Ghansham Dass took a turn for his shop whereas Chander Parkash started moving towards his office. In the meantime, Ashok Kumar respondent No.5-Driver, while driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-22C-9586 rashly and negligently came from the side of village Bhattu and struck Chander Parkash from behind. Resultantly, he fell down and received injuries. Ghansham Dass and Pawan Kumar took him to General Hospital, Fatehabad where he was given first aid. Immediately, thereafter he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak from where the aforesaid persons decided to take him to C.M.C., Hisar. However, he died on his way. Ultimately, this claim petition was filed. The appellant-Insurance Company, respondents No.5-driver and respondent No.6-owner contested the claim petition by filing the replies wherein they controverted the allegations stating that no such accident took place at the time of occurrence and they were not liable to pay the compensation. From pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Chander Parkash died on 06.07.2005 on account of the injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of TVS Victor bearing registration No.HR-22C/9586 by Ashok Kumar which was owned by Ram Singh and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, how much ? OPP 3. Whether the motor cycle was being driven by a person who was not having a valid and effective driving licence ? OPR3 F.A.O.No.1630 of 2008 3 4. Whether motor cycle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR3 5. Relief. Both the parties led evidence, ultimately, the claim petition was accepted and the compensation to the tune of Rs.14,47,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Insurance Company has come up in appeal. Heard. As regards the rashness and negligence of respondent No.5-driver, the claimants have been successfully able to shift the onus. Ghansham Dass (PW-2), an eye witness to the accident, has given minute details of the time, place and the manner in which the accident had taken place. He besides disclosing about the rashness and negligence of respondent No.5-driver, also reveal about the presence of Pawan Kumar at the spot by disclosing that the latter had also come there and they had taken the deceased to the General Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib from where he was shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak and he died on their way to C.M.C., Hisar. This witness has also disclosed about the recording of the FIR Ex.R3 regarding the incident. Despite the lengthy cross-examination conducted upon this witness nothing fruitful could be eluted so as to indict him as untrustworthy. His statement stands corroborated by the post mortem report as well as the FIR Ex.R3. Respondent No.5-driver has also faced trial before the criminal Court. Thus, the contention of the appellant that no such accident took place and that respondent No.5 was not negligent is without any merit. As regards the quantum of compensation, Chander Parkash (deceased) was working as a Head Draftsman in Operation Division of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and was drawing a salary of F.A.O.No.1630 of 2008 4 Rs.15,480/- per month. He, being 52 years of age, had six more years of service at his hand. After making necessary deduction of 1/3rd which he has been contributing towards himself, his net dependency towards the claimants comes to Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. Thus, while applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.14,40,000/-. Besides, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as consortium to Smt.Santosh Kumar claimant and Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite fair, adequate and reasonable. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.10.2009 mamta-II