M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This is owner's appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1930 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging the award dated 16.12.1986, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding by clubbing two claim petitions arising out of the same accident that the offending truck bearing Registration No. PBN-2357 is owned by the owner-appellant and that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver-respondent No. 3, as a result of which Sowinder Singh died on the spot while Joginder Singh had sustained injuries. The claim in the instant appeal pertains to the dependents of Sowinder Singh, who was 18 years old at the time of his death. He had been working as a labourer and his gross monthly income has been held to be Rs. 300/-. The dependents are the father and mother of the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the dependency at Rs. 200/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,400/- per annum. A multiplier of 16 was applied and an amount of Rs. 38,400/-, rounded off to Rs. 40,000/- was awarded to them. The finding on the aforementioned issue as recorded by the Tribunal reads as under: 13. As regards application No. 23 the two applicants namely Piara singh and Harans Kaur are the parents of Sowinder Singh deceased. The testimony of Piara Singh (PW7) has proved that Sowinder Singh deceased had been doing casual labour and had been earning Rs. 600/- per month, the witness however states in his cross examination that he was also been working as a labour and has been earning Rs. 10 to Rs. 15/- per day when he gets work. This means that the deceased being a casual labour had also been earning between Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per day when he had been getting work to do. From this evidence, the monthly income of the deceased can be held round about Rs. 300/- per month. Out of this amount, he must be keeping for his personal expenses sum of Rs. 100/- per month. In this way the annual dependency of the two applicants namely Piara Singh and Harbans Kaur on their deceased son comes to Rs. 2400/-. As per the principle laid down in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 A.C.J. 170, the suitable multiplier in this case would be 16 and with this multiplier the amount of compensation which should be awarded to these two applicants come to Rs. 38400/- and converting it into round figure, it must be assessed at Rs. 40000/-....
(2.) The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the truck was not insured with the respondent insurance company i.e. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. because no evidence was produced on the file. The finding in that regard reads as under: ...There is no evidence on the file to show if the truck involved in the accident was insured with the respondent insurance company. In the absence of any such evidence, the respondent insurance company cannot be held liable for this compensation amount and the other respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay this amount to these two applicants. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the applicants.
(3.) Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the owner appellant, has pointed out by referring to para 15 of Claim Petition No. 23 of 1984 that it was specifically asserted in the aforementioned para that the offending truck bearing No. PBN2357 was insured with the respondent insurance company, vide Policy No. 84/00363. Learned Counsel has also referred to the reply in the corresponding para of the respondent insurance company wherein it is categorically admitted that the truck in question was insured with the respondent insurance company. He has then made a reference to the Claim Petition No. 24 of 1984, wherein the reply filed by the respondent insurance company to a similar para is that the assertion made by the claimant was not contested. Accordingly, it has been urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the ownerappellant are liable to be set aside.;