FAO No. 3537 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3537 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision 12.7.2011 1. FAO No. 3537 of 2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Appellant v. Smt.Bimla Devi and Others Respondents 2. FAO No. 3538 of 2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Appellant v. Smt.Krishna Rani and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma,Advocate for the appellant .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J(ORAL) C.M.No.12520-CII of 2011 in FAO No. 3537 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Delay of 41 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.12525-CII of 2011 in FAO No. 3538 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. Main appeal Nos.3537 and 3538 of 2011 This, and the connected appeal No. 3538 of 2011, have been filed by the appellant-Company against the Award dated 8.11.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short the Tribunal) in the two claim petitions (133 of 2010 and 134 of 2010) filed by Smt. Bimla FAO No. 3537 of 2011 2 Devi and Smt. Krishna Rani against respondents No. 1 to 3. The brief facts giving rise of these appeals are that on 21.1.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. Complainant Gopal Krishan was standing outside the hotel,near Shifali Dhaba,while he was starting his motor cycle for going to his house,he saw a trolla coming from Karnal side, driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. Two young boys were coming towards Tehsil Camp from the road across the Highway near his shop, the driver of the trolla directly hit the motor cycle driven by said two boys, as a result of which both of them fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. The complainant came near the injured and found that they were, Mahender, son of Narain Dass and Naveen son of Bhim Sen Sharma. The driver of the trolla stopped the vehicle at some distance. The complainant note down the number and name of the driver. The driver ran away from the spot. Complainant took the injured to Civil Hospital,Panipat, where the doctor declared them brought dead. A criminal case under sections 279,337 and 304-A IPC was registered vide FIR No. 22.1.2009 in Police Station, City Panipat. In the claim petition filed by Smt. Bimla, the mother of deceased Naveen, it was pleaded that at the time of accident, Naveen, a bachelor was 23 years old and was employed as Salesman at Rohin Sareen Prop. M/s J.P.Brothers, Raimond Shop, Panipat and was earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. He was the sole bread earner of the family. A claim for Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation, has been raised by the claimant on account of death of Naveen, in the accident, against the respondents being the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13P-7512. In the claim petition filed by Smt.Krishna Rani, the mother of FAO No. 3537 of 2011 3 deceased Mahender, it was pleaded that at the time of accident, Mahender, a bachelor was 20 years old and was employed as Senior Sales Executive at Rohin Sareen Prop. M/s J.P.Brothers, Raimond Shop, Panipat and was earning Rs. 7500/- p.m. He was the sola bread earner of the family. The claimants have claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for his death, in the accident, against the respondents being the driver, owner and insurer , respectively of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13P-7512. In the joint written statements filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, the stand taken was that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle. The case against the driver was got registered in connivance with the police with a view to claim huge compensation. It was further stated that the respondent No. 1 was falsely implicated by the police. In the written statement filed by the respondent No.3, Insurance Company,the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties were raised. It was denied that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver, respondent No.1, and rather accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased themselves. In support of their claim, claimants have examined six witnesses and relied upon documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the other hand respondents No. 1 & 2 examined Manjit Singh as RW1 and tendered in evidence Ex. R1 to R4. However, respondent No. 3 did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. Gopal Krishan, the eye witness to the accident tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW6/A, reiterating the contents of the FAO No. 3537 of 2011 4 petition and specifically stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB 13P 7512, driven by respondent No.1. PW3 Balwant Rai, Additional Ahlmad in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat brought the summoned record of both the cases registered under sections 279 / 337/ 304-A IPC in which charge stands framed and case was fixed for prosecution evidence and accused driver is facing trial. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company has not led any evidence that the driver of the offending trolla was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. So, the Tribunal decided this issue against respondent No.3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on record and examining the witnesses, came to the conclusion that the accident has been caused by respondent No.1,who was driving the offending trolla, in a rash and negligent manner, and he was facing trial before the criminal court. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,47,000/- by applying the multiplier of 18 and assessing the dependency at Rs. 24,000/- per year keeping in view that the deceased was in the age group of 15-25 years, in the case of deceased Naveen. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were held liable to pay the amount jointly and severally. In the case of deceased Mahender, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- by applying the multiplier of 17 and assessing the dependency at Rs.30,000/-per year and age of the deceased in the age group of 26-30. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were held liable to pay the amount jointly and severally. FAO No. 3537 of 2011 5 In view of the well reasoned findings of the Tribunal and amount of compensation awarded in both the cases by applying the guidelines framed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, 2009(3) Recent Civil Reports,77, no ground warranting interference is made out. Both the appeals fail and are dismissed in limine. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 12.7.2011 ms