Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
FAO No. 856 & 1108 of 2013 (O&M)
Parveen Chawla
v.
Shakuntla Rani & Ors.
{Decided on 15/07/2015}
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3:Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 5:Mr. Raman B. Garg and Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2: Died.
For the Respondent No. 4: Ex-parte.
For the Appellant FAO No. 1108 of 2013:Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 in FAO No. 1108 of 2013:Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3 in FAO No. 1108 of 2013:Mr. Raman B. Garg and Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocates.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & S.149--Accident--Driving License--Admittedly, appellant has employed the driver after taking his driving test and after going through the driving license--Various renewal endorsements were found to be valid--Insurance Company failed to prove that there was willful default on the part of appellant--Insurance company cannot absolved from his liability--Impugned order in this context set aside. (Para 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 & 21)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & S.168--Accident--Claim Petition--Compensation awarded--Appeal for enhancement of--Deceased bachelor aged 29 years--50% added on account of future prospectus--50% deducted towards personal expenses--Multiplier of 17 rightly adopted by Tribunal--Held; claimants are further entitled to Rs.20,000/- in respect of expenses on last rites and transportation charges--Also entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection to parents--In totality, claimants are entitled to Rs.7,83,500/- from Rs.6,17,000/--Impugned award modified. (Para 22, 23, 24 & 26)
Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - F.A.O. No. 856 of 2013
This appeal FAO No. 856 of 2013 titled as Parveen Chawla v. Shakuntla Rani and others has been directed by Parveen Chawla owner of TATA Tipper bearing registration No.HR-37C-3018 against the Award dated 24.12.2012 passed by Shri Rakesh Singh, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which the claim petition preferred by the claimants was partly accepted and a sum of Rs. 6,17,000/- was allowed to the claimants in respect of death of Amit Kumar in a motor vehicular accident on 26.9.2010. However, the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability.
2. The claimants have also directed cross FAO No. 1108 of 2013 regarding the said Award dated 24.12.2012, referred to above, for enhancement of compensation. Since both these appeals have arisen out of the same Award and as such these are being disposed of with the common judgment.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the claimants is that on 26.09.2010 Amit Kumar @ Rinku (since deceased) was coming from Ambala with his employer namely Vijay Kumar Gupta, driving Car No.HR-2S-3506 at a slow speed in his correct left side of the road. At about 10.30/11.00p.m., when they reached near Maruti show room, Tepla Industrial Area Saha, District Ambala on Jagadhri-Ambala road, a Tata Tipper/Dumper bearing registration No. HR-37C-3018 being driven by its driver-respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from opposite side and struck against the car by coming on wrong side and caused the accident in which Amit Kumar @ Rinku received multiple grievous injuries and trapped in the steering of car and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. After causing the accident, the driver of the offending truck/dumper fled away, leaving his truck at the spot. The car was also damaged in the accident. Amit Kumar thereafter was taken in Civil Hospital, Ambala where he was declared brought dead due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. FIR No.133 dated 27.09.2010 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.1 on the statement of the complainant. Therefore, the claimants have prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
4. On notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint reply raising preliminary objections as to maintainability etc. On merits, it has been submitted that FIR has been lodged falsely against the respondent No.1 as no accident took place with Tata Tipper/Dumper bearing registration No. HR-37C-3018. Denying other averments, answering respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company filed separate written statement and took up preliminary objections as to maintainability ; locus standi, cause of action ; nonjoinder of necessary parties etc. On merits answering respondent has submitted that no accident had taken place with the truck/dumper bearing registration No. HR-37C-3018 and a false and fabricated FIR has been registered. It is further pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and further that the vehicle in question was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Denying other averments, answering respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
“1. Whether Amit Kumar alias Rinku died on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 26.9.2010 in the area of police station, Industrial Area Saha on account of rash or/and negligent driving of TATA Tipper bearing registration No.HR-37C-3018 by respondent No.1 which is owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3, as alleged ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any amount as compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and no
