FAO No. 3384 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3384 of 1999 Date of decision:15th March, 2011 Smt. Roshni Devi and another .......Appellants Versus M/s Inderjit Tara & Company and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the appellant. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K.KANNAN, J.(Oral) 1. There is no representation for the appellants but I have proceeded to examine the case on the basis of the records and dispose of the case as under. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male aged 19½ years. The claimants were parents. The accident had occurred when the deceased was riding on a cycle and the second respondent vehicle coming from the opposite direction dashed against the cyclist resulting in fatal injuries. The accident had FAO No. 3384 of 1999 2 taken place on 30.09.1996 in the area of Nilokheri. 3. The Tribunal found that the vehicle had been no doubt involved in the accident but the appellant had not proved that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent. The Tribunal reasoned that no criminal case had been registered against the driver and the entry in the DDR showed that the deceased hit against a bull that was crossing the road and the collision had taken place at that time. The inference of the Tribunal was therefore, that the accident had occurred not solely due to the negligent driving of the driver. It discarded the evidence of PW-2 who spoke from his personal knowledge that the vehicle was being driven by the second respondent in a rash manner. In a case of collision between a cyclist and the motor car and by a collision of the motor car against a cyclist, I will rule that it was only on account of negligent driving of the driver of the motor car. It is impossible to make a collision by a careful driver except under the circumstance when some mechanical defect or an act of god situation intervenes. I therefore, set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold the second respondent to be totally responsible for the said accident. 4. The deceased was said to be working in a brick kiln and earning ` 2,000/- per month. I will take the same as established and provide for 50% contribution to the family, adopt a multiplier of 14 and take the loss of dependency at ` 1,68,000/-. I will make an additional amount of ` 7,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral FAO No. 3384 of 1999 3 expenses and round of the claim at ` 1,75,000/-. The amount in excess over what has already been determined by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on the respondents jointly and severally and the right of enforcement will be available against the insurer. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 5. As there is no representation for the appellants, the Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of the award to the appellants at the address mentioned in the Memo of Parties. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 15th March, 2011 Shivani Kaushik