FAO No.1060 of 1991 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
FAO No.1060 of 1991
Date of decision: January 07, 2009
Kesho Ram ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Gur Devi and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Kamal Kant Advocate, for
Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.8
Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is an owner’s appeal on whom the liability for
compensation was fastened by the Tribunal as his vehicle was involved
in an accident which occurred on 9th August, 1990 resulting in death of
one Bicha Ram. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle,
which caused the accident resulting in death of Bicha Ram, was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner. A total compensation of
Rs.63,000/- was thus awarded by the Tribunal as Bicha Ram was
serving as Assistant Lineman in Haryana State Electricity Board at
Jagadhri. He was 42 years of age and his monthly salary was
Rs.2086.50 P. The compensation was calculated by assessing the
dependency as Rs.1500/- and applying a multiplier of 7. The same was
thus assessed as Rs.1,26,000/-. However, the Tribunal also came to the
conclusion that the deceased Bicha Ram was equally responsible for the
FAO No.1060 of 1991 2
accident. Thus, the compensation was reduced by 50%. A total amount
of Rs.63,000/- was thus awarded.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on
the ground that the Tribunal had mis-appreciated the evidence as it had
come on record in the evidence of RW1 and RW4 that the car in
question was never involved in the accident. According to the counsel,
RW1 had deposed that the car was parked at some other place at the
time when the accident is alleged to have occurred. Alternatively, the
counsel has argued that entire responsibility of the accident fell on the
shoulder of the deceased Bicha Ram.
After hearing the counsel and perusing the record, I am of
the considered view that the impugned award does not call for any
interference by this court. The evidence has been correctly appreciated
by the Tribunal. The fact that the appellant appearing as RW4 denied
the accident and RW1 supported his version, would not, in my view, be
of much consequence. There is sufficient evidence on record which
proves the occurrence of accident at 7.30 P.M. on 9th August, 1990.
The counsel for the appellant has also argued that
subsequent to the award, the driver of the vehicle has been acquitted on
17th December, 1999 by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Jagadhri in the criminal case registered in respect of the accident.
However, in my considered view, this has no bearing on the decision of
this appeal.
As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
FAO No.1060 of 1991 3
same has also been correctly assessed. The contributory negligence of
deceased Bicha Ram was taken into consideration and thus the same
was reduced to the extent of 50%. In fact, the entire amount of
compensation i.e. Rs.63,000/- was directed to be disbursed to the
claimants vide order dated September 20, 1991, passed by this court in
CM No.7135-CII of 1991.
I do not find any ground to upset the finding of the Tribunal
regarding the occurrence of accident, the amount of compensation etc.
No other argument has been addressed.
The appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
January 07, 2009
‘rajpal’