- (1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of FAO Nos. 6295 and 6342 of 2014 as these have emerged out of common award dated 06.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Tribunal') and involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication.
(2.) Appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (in short, 'the Company') has filed the instant appeals to challenge grant of compensation in favour of the claimants/respondents in regard to death of Rakesh. One application for compensation was filed by the father and the other by the mother of the deceased which were consolidated and decided together vide award dated 06.03.2014.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the claimants have discharged the onus to prove that Rakesh sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR 56-4251 by its driver namely Rajbir. For this purpose, he has carried me through statement of Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased alleged to be an eye witness to the occurrence. Another submission made by counsel to challenge the award is qua quantum of compensation. In this regard, he has made two fold submissions; firstly, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and further allowed the multiplier of 18 in view of age of the deceased in place of considering age of the parents as father of the deceased was about 59 years at the time of occurrence. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shanti Pathak (Smt) and others, 2007 10 SCC 1. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Vijay son of Om Parkash is the author of FIR No. 16 dated 15.01.2013 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against respondent Rajbir. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PW2/A and deposed categorically that occurrence in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle by its driver Rajbir. There is no denial to the fact that Rajbir is facing trial for causing this accident. The mere fact that the accident was head on collision is not sufficient to prove that it was a case of contributory negligence particularly in the circumstances that Rajbir, driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in the witness box to counter the case of the claimants. The contention raised by counsel in this regard is merit-less and accordingly rejected.;