Ajay Tewari, J. - (1.) THESE are two cross appeals, FAO No. 3801 of 2011 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award and FAO No. 5605 of 2011 has been filed for enhancement of compensation. Since both of them have arisen out of a common award, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For ready reference, facts are being taken from FAO No. 3801 of 2011.
(2.) ON 28.10.2009 at about 6.00 p.m. Randhir and his brother Jangbir were returning on motor cycle after purchasing household goods from Tosham. Jangbir was driving the motor cycle. When they reached near the shop of Krishan, a dumper bearing no. HR -55 -B -2151 came from Khanak side to Tosham having been driven by respondent No. 1 at a high speed and dashed into the motor cycle of Jangbir and he was run over by the dumper and died at the spot. The deceased was stated to be an agriculturist having share in two tractors also but the Tribunal considering him to be a labourer, took his income to be Rs. 4000/ - per month. Deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses, the monthly dependency of the claimants on him was assessed at Rs. 3000/ - and annual dependency to be Rs. 36,000/ -. Considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, multiplier of 16 was applied and thereby the amount of compensation worked out was Rs. 5, 76,000/ -. The amount under conventional heads was awarded to the tune of Rs. 30,000/ -. In this way the total amount of compensation awarded was Rs. 6,06,000/ - to be payable by all the respondents jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the insurance company -appellant has argued that the accident has not been proved. He has emphasised the contradiction in the version put before the Court (which as per him supports him) and the version of the FIR which supports the claimants and has argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on the averments made in the FIR and ignored the averments and testimony in the affidavit. The contradiction is that in the FIR the brother of the deceased mentioned that he and the deceased were travelling on different motor cycles but in the claim petition and in his evidence he mentioned that they both were on the same motor cycle. As per him in these circumstances it has to be believed that both of them were on the same motor cycle and if that is so, since it is a head -on collision, he would have surely received injuries. He urged that the only inference which can be drawn from these facts is that he was not present at the site.
(3.) THE second argument of learned counsel for the insurance company is that as per the testimony of PW 2 they started from Tosham at about 5.45 p.m. and the motor cycle was being driven at a very moderate speed. The accident took place 4 Kilometers from Tosham and the FIR was recorded at 6.00 p.m. by the police. He has argued that these facts reveal that there is a collusion between the driver/owner and the claimants.;