SUMAN AND OTHERS Vs. KULWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two FAOs, one by the insurer and other by the claimants, are aimed at challenging the award dated 12.08.2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby it has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,39,500 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. for the death of Om Parkash aged around 27 years, married, working as a Mazdoor in the Ammunition Depot. It was on the fateful day of 03.02.2009 the deceased was travelling on a bus bearing registration No.HR68-7242 and in the area of T-point Lalru, District SAS Nagar on main Ambala-Chandigarh road when due to traffic snarl a truck-trolla bearing registration No.HR37D- 0752 hit from the rear side the vehicles which were at stationary position leading to a chain reaction as a consequence of which a truck standing on the rear side of the bus of the deceased struck the bus as a result of which the deceased was thrown out of the bus resulting in injuries leading to his death.

(2.) Claimants are the unfortunate widow, minor children and aged parents of the deceased, who on the plea of being dependents of the deceased claimed that he was earning Rs. 12,000 per month from his employer and thus, sought compensation. Though Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate on behalf of the insurer has sough to rake up the plea as to the mode of the accident claiming it to be a case of contributory negligence and it has been rightly contended on behalf of the other contesting respondents who have drawn the attention to statement of PW-3 Amrik Singh, an eye witness of the accident, who has serialized the events leading to this accident and has categorically stated that it was the vehicle bearing registration No.HR37D-0752 which was being driven by Kulwinder Singh in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for the accident. Learned counsel for the insurer could not bring forth anything adverse that has come in his cross-examination which could undermine the case of the claimants. Rather this witness being an injured eye witness, his testimony cannot be lightly brushed aside and he has corroborated to the initial document of this accident by way of FIR Ex.P4 and the post mortem report Ex.P5 of the deceased, further adds to it. More so, entire evidence of the claimants has remained unrebutted. Driver of the offending vehicle has not stepped in to the witness box to state his side of the story. Thus, an adverse inference needs to be drawn in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) The widow Suman as PW-1 has authenticated the inter-se relationship, avocation of the deceased and their dependency on the earnings which have been well established by PW-2 UDC Abdul Aziz from the employer of the deceased who has proved the initial salary certificate Ex.P1 and revised pay Chart Ex.P2.