Back
1995 Supreme(P&H) 395
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Patiala - Appellants
Versus
Daljit Kaur and others - Respondents
First Appeal from Order No. 1074 of 1985.
Decided On : 21 March, 1995
For the Appellants :Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate.
In a head-on collision between two vehicles, the liability to pay compensation may be apportioned between the insurance companies of the two vehicles if the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of both drivers.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION - APPORTIONMENT - HEAD-ON COLLISION BETWEEN TRUCK AND MATADOR - LIABILITY FASTENED ON BOTH INSURANCE COMPANIES IN RATIO OF 50:50.
Fact of the Case:
A truck and a Matador collided head-on, resulting in the deaths of three passengers in the Matador and injuries to two others. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and fastened the liability to pay compensation on the New India Assurance Company, which insured the truck. The New India Assurance Company appealed the decision, arguing that the liability should have been fastened on the Oriental Insurance Company, which insured the Matador.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the truck driver and the Matador driver. The court held that the liability to pay compensation should be apportioned between the two insurance companies in the ratio of 50:50.
Issues: 1. Whether the liability to pay compensation should be fastened on the New India Assurance Company or the Oriental Insurance Company. 2. Whether the liability should be apportioned between the two insurance companies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability to pay compensation should be apportioned between the two insurance companies in the ratio of 50:50 because the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the truck driver and the Matador driver.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part and modified the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the extent that the liability to pay compensation would be in the ratio of 50:50 on the New India Assurance Co. & the Oriental Insurance Co. FAO 392-1986 stand dismissed.
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. - These four appeals No. 1074, 1075 and 1077 of 1985 and 392 of 1986, are being disposed of by a common judgment which have been filed by the New India Assurance Co. against the four awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, in four separate claim petitions. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the New India Assurance Company, Patiala.
2. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 76.800/-, Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 76,800/- to the claimants on account of the death of Kulwant Singh, Narinder Singh and Jeet Ram and Rs. 36,098/- and Rs. 7,895 to Daljit Kaur and Pushpinder Kaur for the injuries sustained by them in road accident.
3. The Bench had dismissed the appeal Nos. 1074, 1075 and 1077 of 1985 filed by the Insurance Co. against the claimants. However, the appeals were admitted as against the driver of the truck and owner of Matador and Oriental Insurance Co. with which the Matador bearing No. PJV 3979 was insured. F.A.O. 392/1986 was admitted and ordered to be heard with FAO No. 1074 of 1986.
4. In all these appeals, the challenge to the award is that the liability to pay compensation has been wrongly fastened on the appellant which should have been fastened on the Oriental Company.
5. In this case the accident and deaths of Kulwant Singh, Narinder Singh and jeet Ram are not in dispute. The only opposition is with record to the fastening of the liability.
6. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1983, Kulwant Singh deceased, along with Narinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh Sodhi, Bhupinder Singh, Palwinder Singh, Joginder Kaur, Pushpinder Kaur and Daljit Kaur along with two minor children were proceeding towards Faridkot in a Matador PJV-3979 being driven by Jeet Ram. A truck bearing No. PJV 4535 which was being driven by Dilawar Singh respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from Ludhiana side and struck against the Matador as a result of which the driver of the Matador was killed at the spot. The claimants and other occupants received injuries. The injured were removed to C.M.C. Ludhiana. While Narinder Singh Sodhi died immediately after reaching the hospital, Kulwant Singh died after six days of the occurrence. According to the claimants, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Dilwar Singh, the driver of truck No. PUC 4535.
7. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the claimants details of which have ready been mentioned in para 2 of the judgment, by holding that death of Kulwant Singh, jeet Singh and Narinder Singh and injuries to Daljit Kaur and Pushpinder Kaur, were caused as result of rash and negligent driving of Dilawar Singh, driver of truck No. PUC-4535.
8. The counsel for the appellants here argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident was caused was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver whereas the accident due to negligent driving of Matador No. PUV 3979.
9. Counsel for the appellant contends that per statements of Smt. Daljit Kaur, Pushpinder Kaur and Bhupinder Singh, the eye-witnesses, it is apparent that deaths were not caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUC 4535. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company contends that the liability on the New India Insurance Company has been rightly fastened. As such, no interference in the matter is called for.
10. After having considered the submissions and perusing the evidence, this Court has reached the conclusion that 100% liability to pay compensation on the New India Assurance Company has been wrongly fastened. It has come in the testimony of Smt. Daljit Kaur (PW1) who was the occupant of matador that a truck came from the opposite side nd dashed into the matador in a rash and negligent manner. In cross-examination she admitted that she was sitting on the back seat of the matador and she came to know about the accident when it had occurred. This witness could not have been in a position to tell
