IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 661 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 30, 2009 Oriental Insurance Company Limited .....Appellant Versus Nasim and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Petition filed by the claimants-respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the grant of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Mohammad Umar in a motor vehicular road side accident was accepted by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar vide award dated 29.8.2008 and the claimants were granted an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- as compensation against driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck. The said amount was ordered to be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the award. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, in case the amount was deposited within aforementioned period, otherwise the claimants were to be paid interest F.A.O. No. 661 of 2009 -2- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount, as awarded. Aggrieved of the same, the present appeal has been filed by the insurer of the offending truck. As per the claim petition, on 28.10.2006, Mohammad Umar, since deceased, who was a vegetable seller, was sitting on the pillion seat of a scooter driven by Mohammad Ishpak. The scooter was being driven slowly with proper care and caution and on the left side of the road. When they reached near village Buddha Bheora at about 9.00 P.M., a truck bearing registration No. PB-12-A-4731 came from the opposite direction, which was driven by its driver Sajjan Singh at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries. He was rushed to the hospital at Ropar from where he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he died on the following day. Pleading that they were dependent upon the deceased and had been deprived of his love and affection, the claimants, who are parents, four sisters and brother of the deceased, filed the petition for the grant of compensation. The claim petition was opposed by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. Even the Insurance Company-appellant opposed the claim petition by raising preliminary objections that the offending vehicle was never involved in the accident in question and the claim petition had been filed by the claimants in collusion with the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, just for the purpose of getting the F.A.O. No. 661 of 2009 -3- compensation. Moreover, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence as well as route permit. After going through the evidence led by the parties and hearing their learned counsel, the Tribunal held that the claimants, who were parents and minor sisters and brother of the deceased were his legal heirs and dependent upon him. The accident in which Mohammad Umar received injuries and died later on due to the same, was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by Sajjan Singh, driver. As the offending vehicle stood transferred in the name of Amrik Singh before the accident in question and route permit also issued in his name and further that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, learned Tribunal held that Sajjan Singh, Driver, Amrik Singh, registered owner, and Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of the offending vehicle, were jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Mohammad Umar, since deceased, was 18 years of age at the time of his death. Therefore, his mother Nasim, his father Abdul Majid, his four sisters, Zarina, aged about 17 years, Tabasum, aged about 15 years, Ruksaar, aged 8 years, Muskaan, aged 5 years and brother Arif, aged 13 years, were his legal heirs and dependent upon him. From the evidence of Mohammad Ispak PW2, it stood established that on 28.10.2006 at about 9.00 P.M. Sajjan Singh- respondent No.1, while driving the offending truck in a rash and F.A.O. No. 661 of 2009 -4- negligent manner dashed the same against the scooter driven by Mohammad Ispak upon which Mohammad Umar, since deceased and Shaamshad Hussan were the pillion riders. As a result thereof, all the three occupants of the scooter received injuries. However, Mohammad Umar succumbed to his injuries on the following day. An FIR Ex.P.1 stood registered on the statement of Mohammad Ispak against Sajjan Singh under Section 304-A IPC. In the said FIR, the registration number of the offending truck was mentioned as PB-12-4731, whereas the actual registration No. of the offending vehicle was PB-12-A-4731. Mohammad Ispak explained the minor contradiction regarding the registration number of the offending truck by stating that on account of suffering multiple grievous injuries, including head injuries, he was under shock and tension. The insurer of the truck has placed reliance on the report Ex.R.1 made by DSP Didar Singh as brought on record by RW2 Constable Lachhman Dass, wherein it was held that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question. If such a conclusion had been arrived at by the investigating agency, it was to follow it up by either presenting a cancellation report or an untraced report before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate. Nothing of that sort was done. Under these circumstances, report Ex.R.1 cannot be made use of by the insurer of the truck so as to avoid incurring the liability of payment of compensation by indemnifying the truck owner. F.A.O. No. 661 of 2009 -5- In her testimony, PW1 Nasim, mother of the deceased deposed that her son Mohammad Umar, aged 18 years, was a vegetable seller and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. After relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhawa and others v. State of Bihar 2001 ACJ 1735, learned Tribunal assessed the annual contribution of deceased Mohammad Umar at Rs.24,000/- and as the deceased was 18/19 years of age, multiplier of 15 was applied so as to determine the amount of compensation to be Rs.3,60,000/- but in the same was added the conventional amount of Rs.20,000/- for awarding total amount of compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-. It cannot be said that the annual contribution of the deceased to his legal heirs and the multiplier of 15 were on the higher side. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 30, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO