IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 78 of 2007. Judgment reserved on 3.5.2011. Date of decision:23.5.2011. Jit Kumar …Appellant. Versus Swaran Singh & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondents.1 to 4: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents 5 & 6: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition by the owner of the vehicle is directed against the award of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Fast Track Court, Una in M.A.C. Petition No. 80 of 2001, whereby the appellant has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacs) to the claimants-respondents No.1 to 4. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants are the parents, minor sister, minor brother of deceased Gurmail Singh. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in which it was alleged that the deceased was working as denter/painter of motor vehicles. On the ill-fated day he 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : was going to Ajouli from Santokhgarh on Scooter No. PB-16-3400. He was the pillion rider of the scooter. It is alleged that Maruti Van No. DL-3CC-0315 came from the opposite side. It was being driven by Dharam Pal (who later on died) and owned by Jeet Kumar appellant. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti van. The owner and driver of the Maruti van filed a common reply in which they stated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter and that the scooter driver was a necessary party to these proceedings. In fact, according to them, the van was not at all involved in the accident. 3. The main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the Maruti van or the scooter. 4. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the date of the accident itself at 10:10 p.m., whereas the accident had taken place at 8:30 p.m. In this FIR itself, it is mentioned that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti van No. DL-3CC-0315. FIR was lodged by Shri K.D. Sharma, Advocate. Unfortunately, Gurmail Singh died as a result of the injuries received/suffered by him in the accident. Sh. : 3 : K.D. Sharma appeared as PW-4. He stated that he is practicing as an Advocate for the last about 10 years and he was also a member of the Nagar Panchayat, Santokhgarh. According to him, on 23.7.2007 at about 8:30 p.m when he was going to the market, he saw one Maruti van No. DL-3CC-0315 being driving by Dharam Pal in a very high speed and on the wrong side of the road. This Maruti van hit scooter No. PB-16-3400 which was on the correct side. Gurmail Singh (deceased) was the pillion rider of the scooter and Sunil Kumar was driving the same. Gurmail Singh suffered serious injuries and he (K.D. Sharma) informed the police about the accident. In cross- examination, he has admitted that he was earlier junior to Sh. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, but states that he is now working independently. According to him, even when the accident took place he had started independent practice. He admits that in the replication/rejoinder to the claim petition his signatures are there. He denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence to help the claimants. Dharam Pal driver of the van unfortunately died later. 5. The respondent has produced two witnesses, namely S/Sh. Ravinder Kumar & Manohar Lal as RW-3 and RW-4. According to them the scooter was trying to overtake a bus in a rash and negligent manner. Further according to them it was raining at the relevant time and : 4 : therefore, the scooter skidded. 6. The version of these witnesses that the Maruti van did not hit the scooter at all cannot be believed. RW-3- Ravinder Kumar is the real brother of the appellant who is the owner of the van and it is obvious that he is testifying just to help his brother. Further according to this witness he and the driver were at the house of Mintu when the accident took place. RW-4 Manohar Lal in his cross- examination admitted that the accident of the scooter took place with the Maruti van, though according to him the van was at a standstill. 7. RW-2 Swroop Lal is the head constable. He has been produced by the appellant. He had mechanically inspected the scooter and the van. RW2/B is his report which clearly shows that the right side of the van on the driver's side was totally damaged and the window on the driver's door side also broken. It also reveals that the scooter had come under the van and, therefore, the right hand side bumper was broken and the paint had peeled off. The front side of the van was damaged at various places which clearly indicates that the scooter had hit the van and falsifies the version of the witnesses of the respondents. 8. There are two other documents on record Mark A and Mark B which are photographs of the accident site and clearly depicts that the scooter had a head on collision : 5 : with the van. 9. The statement of Sh. K.D. Sharma PW-3 inspires confidence. The main objection of Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant is that Sh. K.D. Sharma's statement should not be believed, since he is not only the witness to the case, but has also appeared as counsel for the party. 10. No doubt, it is true that an advocate who has reason to believe that he may be cited as an witness in any case should not appear as counsel in the said case. This Court has time and again held that the dignity of the profession can only be maintained if the lawyers strictly follow the Bar Council of India Rules. The Rules governing advocates lay down certain standards of profession and etiquettes. Rule 13 of chapter 2 reads as follows:- “An Advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a case in which he has reason to believe that he will be a witness and if being engaged in a case, it becomes apparent that he is a witness on a material question of fact, he should not continue to appear as an Advocate if he can retire without jeopardising his client's interests.” 11. It is obvious that Sh. K.D. Sharma should not have accepted the brief in the said case. However, from the record I find that Sh. K.D. Sharma had never filed power of attorney in the case and in fact his presence is also not marked at any stage, but he has definitely signed the replication. He should not have done so, but this does not mean that his entire statement should be disbelieved on : 6 : this ground alone. The FIR was lodged by him and at that time itself the number of the Maruti van had been given. Therefore, the statement of this witness inspires confidence and the accident must have occurred in the manner as deposed by Mr. K.D. Sharma. There is no reason to doubt his integrity and, therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van are upheld. 12. The next question is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The deceased was only about 21 years old and his income has been calculated at Rs. 4,000/- per month and loss of dependency at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Multiplier of 12 is reasonable and, therefore, the amount of compensation granted cannot be said to be on the higher side. 13. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeal or the application for addition of parties which are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge 23rd May, 2011. (Krn Guleria)