Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumari and others – Respondents
FAO No.997 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-09-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Navin Kapur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
The violation of permit conditions by a vehicle does not necessarily absolve the Insurance Company from liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 66, 69, 149(2) - Violation of permit conditions - Hans Raj Chaudhary Vs. Smt. Nanhi Devi (2013(7) RCR (Civil) 2574), Future General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Surjo Devi (2013(2) RCR (Civil) 564), National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Giri (2012(2) RCR (Civil) 183)
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the award of compensation to the claimants for the death of Prem Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The appellant contested the income assessment of the deceased and the violation of permit conditions by the vehicle involved in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the income assessment of the deceased was justified and even if reduced, it would not substantially affect the compensation. The court also held that the violation of permit conditions by the vehicle did not absolve the Insurance Company from liability.
Issues: The issues involved the assessment of the deceased's income and the violation of permit conditions by the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Sections 66, 69, and 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as established in previous cases to determine that the violation of permit conditions did not absolve the Insurance Company from liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company against the award dated 16.11.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”) vide which respondents No.1 to 7-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.21,62,000/- on account of death of Prem Singh in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 31.12.2008.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (who was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the claim petition) to assail the award.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the income of the deceased has been taken to be on higher side. It was not proved that the milk which he was selling to the District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, Milk Plant, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was yielded from his own cattle or he used to purchase that milk. There is also no proof regarding the agricultural income of the deceased. Thus, he contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.16,000/- per month, which resulted in exorbitant compensation.
5. He further contended that Ex.R4 is the copy of the permit issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government in favour of the vehicle. He contended that there was no permit with the vehicle to operate in the jurisdiction of the State of Punjab where the accident has taken place. Thus, he contended that the vehicle was being operated in the State of Punjab without permit, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the appellant-Insurance Company was entitled for recovery rights.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.8 & 9 contended that mere this fact that the truck No.HP-12-9495 was not having the permit for the State of Punjab is no ground to prove the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy when it is established that the vehicle in question has a valid permit issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh. She further contended that said permit was even valid up to 16 kilometers from the region of Himachal Pradesh but the accident has taken place just within 12 kilometers from the boundary of State of Himachal Pradesh. So, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
7. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
8. The challenge made by learned counsel for the appellant to the income of the deceased taken by the learned Tribunal has no substance. On appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased Prem Singh was Rs.16,000/- per month from all the sources. The claimants have examined PW5 Jaswinder Singh who was working with the District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, Milk Plant, SAS Nagar, Mohali as Secretary and he has stated that deceased Prem Singh has sold the milk for a sum of Rs.1,49,355/- for the period with effect from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008. He has produced the copy of the extract of register Ex.P5. It is also alleged that the deceased was working as an agriculturist. The learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.16,000/- per month.
9. Moreover, even if the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased has been taken to be on higher side is accepted and his income is reduced, there will be no substantial difference in the quantum of compensation as the learned Tribunal has not awarded any future prospects to the income of the deceased. The deceased was 40 years of age at the time of the accident and 30% of his income should have been added towards future prospects. Thereafter, the income of the deceased will be approximately the same. So, there will be no justification to reduce the inco
