K. Kannan, J. - (1.) CM No. 6142 -CII of 2014. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM No. 6143 -CII of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is restored to file. FAO No. 38 of 1991
(2.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition claiming compensation by the widow of the deceased. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when the deceased was going on a bicycle when the second respondent's jeep dashed against him from behind, ran over him and killed him at spot. The accident had taken place on 06.08.1989 and FIR had been lodged on the same day by a person who gave the identity of the vehicle with reference to the registration number as well as the name of the driver. It was recorded in the FIR that the jeep was carrying 3 other passengers, the vehicle has stopped at a distance and seeing that several persons had collected at the place of accident, the driver sped from the place. It is a matter of record that the vehicle had been seized the following day and it was noticed by the police in the report that the head lamp had been broken, front side had been dented and the footrest at the side of the driver had also been damaged. A criminal case had been taken up against him for rash and negligent driving. It appears that the criminal court had acquitted him and that was taken to be predominantly the reason why the Tribunal held that the proof of accident had not been established. The Tribunal also had other reasons to give out that the person, who had given the FIR, had stated that he had not personally witnessed the accident. The driver had filed the written statement along with the owner but did not support his own statement by giving any evidence in court. At least, the judgment does not spell out the evidence as having been brought before the Tribunal. The acquittal rendered by a criminal court could hardly be a justification for the Tribunal to discredit the version of the claimant regarding the involvement of the insured's vehicle. A FIR lodged on the same day with identity to the offending vehicle having recorded by the concerned official on the next day and brought to evidence ought to have been taken so overwhelming that unless there was a defence by the insurer that there was an act of collusion between the claimant and the owner -cum -driver or when the driver himself had stepped into witness box and denied the accident and gave cogent evidence regarding the non -involvement, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition. I find the reasoning of the Tribunal to discredit the version of the claimant to be erroneous and set aside the finding and hold the second respondent's vehicle to have been involved in the accident and he was taking up a deliberate false defence that the vehicle had not been involved.
(3.) THE deceased was 26 years of age and was said to be an agriculturist. The Tribunal took the income at Rs. 750/ - per month and calculated the dependence at Rs. 6,000/ - per year as extent of dependence and assessed Rs. 96,000/ - as the amount that would have become payable. I take the income, as stated already by the Tribunal, but would also make an assumption that he would have also improved his earning over a period of time and take the monthly contribution to the family at not less than Rs. 1,000/ - per month. I shall rework the compensation under various heads of claims and tabulate them as under: - There shall be an award of Rs. 3,61,500/ - and the same shall also attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The amount shall be distributed in such a way that the widow gets twice as much as each of the parents. The liability shall be on the owner -cum -driver. Having regard to the deliberate false defence taken as I have found, I also impose a cost of Rs. 15,000/ - against the respondents.;