S.S. Saron, J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short - the Act) against the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 11.2.1986 whereby the claim petition of the claimants has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the case are that the claimants-appellants Bansi Yadav and Tapi parents of Siri Ram deceased filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of the demised of their son Siri Ram due to the Motor Vehicle accident at the hands of Krishan Kumar, driver (respondent No. 1). As per the allegations in petition, the deceased was travelling in a 'Tonga' and Bus No. HPZ-528 driven by Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 1) came from behind at a high speed. It was being driven rashly and negligently and it struck the Tonga' on its rear side. On account of the accident, Siri Ram son of the claimants fell on the ground and received injuries, as a result of which he died at the spot. Case FIR No. 105 dated 22.7.1985 (Ex.PB) in this regard was registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana for the offence under Sections 279, 338, 304A/427 Indian Penal Code.
3. Written statement was filed in the case on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and it was denied that any accident took place and that the vehicle of the respondents never met with an accident. Separate written statement was filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 4) in which it was stated that the claim petition was vague and that it discloses no cause of action against the Insurance Co. No details have been given as to how the amount of Rs. 1 lac has been calculated and arrived at and the liability was denied. Besides, no liability attaches to the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. until and unless it is proved that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence, valid registration certificate, valid route permit and valid fitness certificate at the time of occurrence.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether Siri Ram died on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HPZ-528 by Krishan Kumar-respondent No. 1? OPA.
2. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
3. To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom? OPA.
4. Relief.
5. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 11.2.1986 dismissed the claim petition. It was held that no evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove as to how the deceased received injuries that led to his death and that the only witnesses which have been examined were Dr. S.L. Bansal (PW1) who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased. Besides Bansi Yadav (PW2) claimant was also examined. With regard to issue No. 2, regarding non joinder of necessary parties, it was decided against the respondents. As regards compensation, it was held that since there was no evidence that the deceased died in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 1), it was, therefore, held that claimants were not entitled to any compensation. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed.
6. Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition inasmuch as there is sufficient evidence on record which amongst others includes the FIR which has been exhibited as Exhibit PB and also the post mortem examination report exhibited as Exhibit PA from which it can be clearly shown that the deceased-Siri Ram died due to the motor vehicle accident caused by the offending vehicle driven by Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 1). He, further contends that as per the admitted statement of Bansi Yadav, who appeared as PW2, stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 700/- per month, out of which he used to send Rs. 500/- to his parents, therefore, the compensation as prayed was liable to be awarded.
7. In response Shri V. Ramswaroop, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Insurance Co. vehemently argued that there is no evidence on record from which it can be said that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1-Krishan Kumar and, therefore, the Tribunal reached a just and reasonable conclusion in rejecting the claim petition. He further contends that in the absence of any eye witness to prove the accident, it cannot be said that the deceased Siri Ram died in a motor vehicle accident so as to fasten the United India Insurance Co. Ltd, with any liability. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, he contends that apart from the bald statement of Bansi Yadav (PW2) there is nothing to show that the deceased was earning any amount and this should not be relied upon.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
9. It is no doubt true that there is no ocular account which may show that Siri Ram died in a motor vehicle accident. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that case FIR 105 dated 22.7.1985 (Ex.PB) was registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana, for the offences under Section 279/338/304A/427 IPC. The said FIR was registered on the statement of one Mukhtiar Mian son of Mani Mian, resident of village Barian. Police Station Katiyan, Distt. Gopalgarh (Bihar). He stated that he alongwith Suresh son of Bhagilu and Jamir had got down from the train at the railway station Ludhiana. They had come to Ludhiana from their village by night train. They got on to a tonga and proceeded towards Vishkarma Colony. One of the way the tonga driver boarded one more passenger for focal point. His name later was known as Siri Ram Yadav (deceased) son of Bansi Yadav (claimant). The tonga driver drove the same in the wrong direction and on being told he turned back. At about 2-15 am when the tonga reached 200 yards short of Sherpur bye-pass, one truck came at a high speed without blowing any horn and the bus driver who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner struck the tonga on its rear side and they all along with the tonga fell on the left side on the fields and the mare also fell. On hearing the collision, the police officials posted at the round about came at the spot. They tried to stop the bus but it was driven away at a high speed. Due to the accident all received injuries and Siri Ram Yadav died at the spot and another occupant, namely, Jamir died in the hospital. The complainant had noted the number of the bus as HPZ-528. The certified copy of the FIR was tendered in evidence on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before the Tribunal on 9.1.1985. The mode of proof of the FIR or its contents were never challenged by the respondents. Even otherwise, it is well settled that FIR is a public document and certified copy of the same is ex facie admissible in evidence. This is more so in proceedings under the Act where the liability in tort is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the respondents having failed to challenge the mode of proof of the FIR or its contents, it is not for them to now state that the accident did not take place in the manner as is the stand taken by the claimants. Apart from this, the post mortem report is on record as Exhibit PA which has been proved on record on the statement of Dr. S.L. Bansal, Orth. Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana who appeared as PW-1. In the post mortem report Exhibit PA, it is mentioned against the column regarding Information furnished by Police; 'Accident injury.' Besides the injuries are noted as follows;-
'1. Abrasion 4' x 3' on the forehead.
2. Multiple abrasions on the face.
3. Bleeding from the ears.
4. Abrasion 2'x2 1/2' on the anterior aspect of the right region.
On exploration of the injury No. 1, the skull bone (Prietal right sided) fracture and there is sub-dural haematoma.
The cause of death in my opinion was the injuries sustained by the deceased, which couldhave been received in a road accident. The copy of the post mortem report Ex.PA andEx.PA/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of the injuries.'
10. The above evidence of Dr. S.L. Bansal (PW1) also evidently shows that the cause of death in his opinion was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased which could have been received in a road accident. This statement of the Doctor with regard to the nature of injuries having been received in a road accident have not been challenged in the cross examination. The only suggestion put to the Doctor was that the injuries of the deceased could be the result of the fall on the road. This corroborates the version of the claimants that the death in this case was due to the road accident. Therefore, keeping in view the FIR Exhibit PB as also the post mortem report Exhibit PA besides statement of Dr. S.L. Bansal (PW1). I am of the opinion that the accident in the case occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 1). Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is set aside and this issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the appellants.
11. As regards the amount of compensation, apart from the statement of Bansi Yadav (PW2) there is not other evidence on record. Bansi Yadav has stated in his statement that his son Siri Ram Was working as a labourer and he used to earn Rs. 700/- per month, out of which he used to send us Rs. 500/- per month and he has one acre of land in village Tawai, district Devearia in UP. He further states that he was depending on the income of the deceased and that the deceased was his only son and was unmarried and there was no one else to look after them. In cross examination a suggestion was put that the deceased was not earning Rs. 700/- per month to which he stated that it was incorrect to suggest that he was not earning Rs. 700/- per month. There is no reason to doubt the statement of Bansi Yadav (PW2) which has been made by him on oath and even otherwise as a labourer the deceased must be earning Rs. 700/- per month and he must be sending Rs. 500/- per month to his parents. It is also on record that the deceased was 25/10 years of age. Therefore taking these circumstances into consideration the dependency of the claimants works out to Rs. 6000'-. It has come on the record that the deceased Siri Ram was aged about 25/30 years and, therefore, '18' would be the appropriate multiplier to be applied in this case which works out the compensation to Rs. 1,08,000/-. However, the claim is restricted only to Rs. 1 lac. Therefore, as the claimants have claimed only Rs. 1 lac the same is liable to be awarded and which shall be jointly and severally paid.
12. While deciding issue No. 1, I have already held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Krishan Kumar (respondent No. 1), Exhibit R1 is the certificate of insurance issued by respondent No. 4-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. A perusal of the same shows that the vehicle HPZ-528 make Ashok Leyland is insured with it. The accident in question occurred on 22.7.J985 and the insurance policy is valid for the period from 22.1.1985 to 21.1.1986. Though the plea has been taken by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in its written statement that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and also that the grant of payment is subject to the driver of the vehicle having a valid registration and valid route and valid fitness certificate at the time of occurrence, if any. However, this onus which lies on the Insurance Company has not been discharged inasmuch as it has not produced on record any evidence to show that the driver was not having a valid driving licence etc.
13. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.2.1986 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Both the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac. The claim petition was filed be fore the Tribunal on 31.8.1985 and as such the claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac., which has been awarded as compensation, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. This amount shall be payable jointly and severally by respondents.