FAO No. 413 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 413 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 3.2.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .......... Appellant Versus Naresh Kumar & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 2625-CII of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. The averments made in the application make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. “Ordered accordingly.” C.M. stands allowed. FAO No. 413 of 2010 This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 16.9.2009, passed by the learned Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal), vide which the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for grant of compensation, stands allowed. The claimants are father and mother of the deceased Sanjay, FAO No. 413 of 2010 2 who died in a motor vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion, that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Rajinder Kumar respondent No.1 driver of Trolla No. 55-D-9737 in which Sanjay along with some other persons had died. The claimants in support of their claim produced on record the salary certificate of deceased Sanjay showing that he was working as Salesman in S.B. Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Jind and was getting a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month as salary. In addition, compensation was also claimed for transportation of dead body and expenses incurred on the last rites. In order to prove the salary of the deceased Sanjay, Surender Kumar son of Ved Parkash, Accountant of S.B. Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Jind, appeared in the witness box and proved the salary register showing the salary of deceased Sanjay to be Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month. Keeping in view the positive evidence, the learned Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased Sanjay to be Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month, and keeping in view the fact, that he was only 22 years of age, the dependency of the parents was assessed at Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred only) per month i.e. 50% and thereafter by applying the multiplier of 14, keeping in view the age of the parents, granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,03,000/- (Rupees six lac and three thousand only), which was inclusive of funeral expenses, loss to the estate and loss of love and affection and transportation of dead body. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant FAO No. 413 of 2010 3 contends, that the Insurance Company was granted permission to contest the claim petition on merits under Section 170 of the Act, therefore, the appellant can challenge the award even on merit. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the compensation awarded is highly excessive as the learned Tribunal wrongly took the age of the deceased to be 22 years, whereas it was 18 years and 1 month as per the school certificate, produced on record as Ex.P69. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that if age of the deceased Sanjay is taken to be 18 years and 1 month, then it was not possible for the deceased to be earning Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month as claimed by the claimants. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The production of school leaving certificate does not prove the age of the deceased, and in any case, the positive evidence on record could not be disbelieved merely on production of school leaving certificate, as the salary certificate was duly proved by the Accountant of the employer. The learned Tribunal only assessed the dependency of 50% and further mere keeping in view the age of the parents multiplier of 14 was applied, which is again as per settled law. It cannot be said that the compensation awarded as on the higher side as contended. No merit. Dismissed. 3.2.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE