IN THE HI 221 Jaila & Anothe Raj Kaur & Oth CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, driver of the referred to as 15.01.2013 (hereinafter r bearing No.M hereinunder S referred to a compensation 6 claimants ar Gurdev Singh 2. the basis of pl deceased-Gur E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA other Vs. Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, A for the appellants. Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, A for the respondents. *** PTA, J. The appellants before thi the tractor bearing registration as “the offending vehicle”) laying c passed by Motor Accident er referred to as “the learned T o.MACP/10400019/2010 filed by er Section 166 of the Motor Veh o as “the Act”) whereby the clai tion of Rs.19,18,905/- on account o ts are the wife, 3 minor children, an ngh. Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduced Gurdev Singh had died due to the D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1638-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate ill, Advocate this Court are the owner and ion No.PB-33-4743 (hereinafter ing challenge to the Award dated nt Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar ed Tribunal”) in claim petition by the claimants/respondents Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter claimants have been awarded nt of death of Gurdev Singh. The and parents of the deceased - are that the learned Tribunal on ced before it concluded that the the injuries suffered by him in a 6 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document motor vehicul and negligent impugned Aw fixed upon the was not insure 3.1 liability has be on a motorcyc had taken plac liquor. Howev this. As such, t 3.2 accident in qu the deceased appreciate tha driving licence by the learned 3.3 discrepancies claimants’ cas hospital; wher had brought th impugned Awa icular accident that took place on ent driving of the offending vehicle Award, the liability to pay the a the appellants on account of the fa sured. Learned counsel for the s been wrongly affixed upon the app rcycle at the time of accident. It is place because the deceased was d wever, the learned Tribunal has fra ch, the liability could not have been It is further argued that n question has been registered at th sed was working. Moreover, the le that the appellant No.1 was not ar ence of the deceased was not prove rned Tribunal with regard to this. It is further submitted cies in the evidence of the claiman ’ case that the son of the decea hereas as per the hospital record, i ht the deceased to the hospital. It is Award be set aside. Page 2 of 6 on 22.04.2009 due to the rash hicle by appellant No.1. Vide the he aforesaid compensation was he fact that the offending vehicle the appellants argues that the e appellants as the deceased was It is contended that the accident as driving under the influence of framed no issue with regard to een affixed upon the appellants. that the FIR in respect of the at the same Police Station where e learned Tribunal has failed to ot arrested at the spot. Even the roved. Even no issue was framed ted that there are numerous imants inasmuch as, it was the eceased had taken him to the rd, it was the police officials who It is accordingly prayed that the 6 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. that the accide by the appell learned Tribu appellant No.1 accordingly pr 5. 6. perused the ca 7. oral and docu learned Tribun injuries suffere 22.04.2009 du by appellant N admitted case insured. Accor upon the appe 8.1. Head Constab month which After making the salary of th Per contra, learned couns ccident has been duly proven on rec pellants in the written statement ribunal is that no accident had t No.1 stands convicted under Sectio ly prays for dismissal of the present a No other argument is raise I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. Perusal of record of the cas documentary evidence brought on ibunal returned the finding that th ffered by him in the motor vehicula due to the rash and negligent dri nt No.1 and the same was owned case of the appellants that the ccordingly, the liability for paymen appellants. At the time of accident the stable in the Punjab Police and get ich was duly proven on record as p ing deductions of HRA, MA and CA of the deceased to be Rs.14,103/- unsel for the claimants submits n record. The only defence taken ent filed by them before the ad taken place. Moreover, the ection 304 IPC. Learned counsel ent appeal. aised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and e case shows that on the basis of t on record by the parties, the t the deceased had died to the cular accident that took place on t driving of the offending vehicle ned by appellant No.2. It is the the offending vehicle was not ent of compensation was fixed the deceased was working as a getting salary of Rs.17,206 per as per Salary Certificate (Ex.P3). d CA, the learned Tribunal took per month. 6 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8.2 the father of deceased. As 1/4th of the in his monthly in deceased towa 8.3 years on the correctly app Rs.19,03,905/ 8.4 Rs.5,000/- tow loss of consort 8.5 9. deceased was not be foisted the case reve written statem driving the of pleaded by th was drunk at t argument of le Claimant No.2 was the ma of the deceased; who were held t As such, the learned Tribunal cor e income of the deceased towards y income comes to Rs.10,577.25/ towards his family comes to Rs.1,26 The age of the deceased the basis of Post-Mortem Report. applied. Thus, amount for loss 05/-. Respondent No.1/widow towards loss of estate and anothe sortium. Rs.5,000/- was granted tow Thus, total compensation c It has been argued on beh was drunk at the time of accident isted upon the appellants. Howeve reveals that the plea taken by a atement filed before the learned Tr offending vehicle at the time o y the appellants before the learned at the time of accident. From the a of learned counsel for the appellan married son; claimant No.5 was eld to be not dependent on the correctly made a deduction of rds his personal expenses. Thus, .25/- and annual income of the 1,26,972/-. ased was determined to be 38 ort. Thus, multiplier of 15 was loss of dependency came to ow was further held entitled to other sum of Rs.5,000/- towards d towards funeral expenses. ion comes to Rs.19,18,905/-. behalf of the appellants that the ent and therefore, liability could ever, a perusal of the record of y appellant No.1/driver in the d Tribunal was that he was not e of accident. It was nowhere rned Tribunal that the deceased he above facts, it is clear that the ellants that no issue was framed 6 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in this respect pleading was by him. 10. No.1 has tend is adjoining th had seen the duty. It was fu accident, the after consum offending veh appellant No. influence of liq of the fact th improve upon 11. time of accide However, adm learned Tribun framed by th appellants is a 12. claimants that pect by the learned Tribunal is misp as raised by the appellant No.1 in It is only in his evidence endered his affidavit (Ex.RA) wherei g the Police Post where the deceas the deceased consuming excessive as further deposed by appellant No the deceased was driving the mo suming liquor and that his mot vehicle leading to his death. How No.1/RW2 to the effect that the f liquor at the time of accident, is l that the same is clearly an after pon the version previously put forth It is the second contention ccident, the deceased did not pos admittedly no such plea was raised ribunal and therefore, no such issu y the learned Tribunal and there is also to be rejected. As regards the allegation that the deceased was taken to the isplaced, as admittedly, no such .1 in the written statement filed nce as RW2, that the appellant erein he deposed that his house ceased was posted; and that he sive liquor even while he was on t No.1/RW2 that on the night of motorcycle in a zigzag manner motorcycle struck against the However, the testimony of the the deceased was under the , is liable to be discarded in view fter-thought and an attempt to orth by him. tion of the appellants that at the possess a valid driving licence. ised by the appellants before the issue in regard to this could be herefore, this argument of the tion that it was a case of the the hospital by his son; whereas 6 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document as per the ho police officials substantiate th not been deni No.1 stands co Sections 279, Jalandhar. 13. 14. 21.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo hospital record, the deceased wa cials, nothing whatsoever has been te the said assertion from the recor denied by the learned counsel for t ds convicted in the FIR No.50 dated 279, 427 and 304-A IPC at Police In view of the above, the Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No was brought to the hospital by een shown by the appellants to ecord/hospital record. It has also for the appellants that appellant ted 22.04.2009 registered under olice Station Mehatpur, District he present appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document