IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.2327/2009 Date of Decision: 18.5.2009. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ..........Appellant Versus Smt.Kavita Devi and others. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhari,Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH,J The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 14.3.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) partly allowing the claim petition filed by respondents-claimants and awarding a compensation of Rs.5,28,400/-on account of death of Rajinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident. In the claim petition it was alleged that on 21.10.2005 at about 9 pm deceased Rajinder Singh alongwith Surender, Manoj, Satbir and Virender were going to Village Lochab in a Maruti Car bearing registration no.DL-4CE- 1198. At that time a truck was going ahead of them. When they reached two kilometres ahead of Village Lochab the truck going ahead of their car rammed into another stationary truck which was loaded at that time and parked in the middle of the road with no parking lights or any other indication. As a result of the obstruction caused due to that collision between said two trucks the car in FAO No.2327/2009 2 which deceased Rajinder Singh and four others were travelling also rammed into the truck which was earlier going ahead of their car. Due to the said accident all the occupants of the car received multiple and grievous injuries and Rajinder Singh and Surinder Singh, occupants of the car died on the way to General Hospital. It was alleged that accident took place due to negligence on the part of stationary truck bearing registration no.HR-61-2335,(hereinafter referred to as the offending truck) insured by appellant-Insurance Company. FIR no.250 dated 22.10.2005 under Sections 283/337/427/384-A IPC was registered in this regard at PS Sadar Jind. With these allegations widow, minor children, brother and parents of deceased Rajinder Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs. Upon notice, driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition and were proceeded ex party. Appellant Insurance Company contested the claim petition on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the income allegedly being earned by the deceased Rajinder Singh was projected on a higher side. On the pleadings of the parties, issued were framed. Both sides i.e. claimants-respondents and appellant-Insurance Company led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Tribunal, as noticed above, after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, partly allowed the claim petition. Hence the present appeal by Insurance Company. FAO No.2327/2009 3 The impugned award is challenged on two grounds. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that three vehicles were involved in the said accident but the claimants have not impleaded the owners/drivers/insurers of the other two vehicles and as such the claim petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealing material facts from the Court. The second ground on which the award is challenged is that the multiplier applied is on the higher side. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that it was specific case of the claimants that the car in which deceased Rajinder Singh alongwith four others was travelling rammed into a truck going ahead of them as that truck itself had struck against offending vehicle (a stationary and loaded truck) which had been parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights or any other indication to that effect. From the averments made in the claim petition the claimants cannot be accused of concealing material facts, as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Secondly if the owners/drivers and insurers of the other two vehicles i.e. the other truck and Maruti car had not been impleaded as parties to the claim petition, it was for the appellants to have got an issue framed to that effect. No such issue was pressed or framed to that effect as is evident from the impugned award. Thus, appellant cannot be permitted to raise said issue. Moreover, as claimed by the respondents the accident had taken placed FAO No.2327/2009 4 due to wrong parking of the offending vehicle in the middle of the road in which firstly the truck going ahead of the car rammed and then the car itself rammed. In such an eventuality, at best the accident can be said to be a case of composite negligence and as such non-impleadment of the drivers/owners/insurers of the other two vehicles is immaterial as the claimants are free to claim/recover compensation from insurer of either of the involved vehicles. As regards the compensation awarded, it has come on record that at the time of his death deceased Rajinder Singh was aged 24 years. Though claimants alleged him to be owner of a truck and as such earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the learned Tribunal treated him to be an unskilled labourer and assessed his monthly at Rs.3600/-. Keeping in view his age (24 years) multiplier of 18 was applied. In my opinion, the income assessed and multiplier applied is just and fair and cannot be termed to be on higher side. No other point has been raised. Accordingly,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 18.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge