SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 1579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Bimla and others – Appellants
Versus
Dilbagh Singh and others – Respondents
FAO No.1082 & 1377 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1377-2013 and for respondent no.2 in FAO-1082-2013

Validity of evidence and driving license, assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Application for Impleading - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 6 - The court discussed the issue of driving license and its validity under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The court found that the second driving license produced was fake and the driver did not have a valid driving license, leading to the insurance company being given recovery rights.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved two appeals arising from a motor accident claims tribunal award. The deceased was a commission agent and liquor vendor, and the tribunal assessed the compensation based on his income. The claimants sought higher compensation, but the court found their evidence to be insufficient.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the claimants' appeal, finding their evidence to be insufficient and contradictory. It also dismissed the owner's appeal, ruling that the driver did not have a valid driving license, and the insurance company was given recovery rights.

Issues: Insufficiency and contradiction of evidence, validity of driving license, assessment of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the claimants' evidence was insufficient and contradictory, and the driver did not have a valid driving license, leading to the insurance company being given recovery rights.

Final Decision: The claimants' appeal was dismissed, and the owner's appeal was also dismissed, with the insurance company being given recovery rights.

JUDGMENT :

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

CM No.15445-CII-2017 in FAO No. 1082 of 2013

1. This is an application for impleading the LRs of deceased Bimla. The application is allowed. The name of appellant no.1 is deleted. As the remaining legal heirs of Kehar Singh are already on record. The appellants are the sons and daughters of Kehar Singh deceased. The widow has since died.

MAIN APPEALS:-

2. These are two appeals arising out of the award dated 08.11.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal. One appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement and the other by the owner against the recovery granted to the insurance company.

3. Kehar Singh was 40 years old and was stated to be running his business under the name and style of M/s. Chaudhary Kehar Singh Pehlwan and dealing in the business of fruits, vegetables and food-grains as Commission Agents in Sabji Mandi and New Anaj Mandi, Hodal. He was also stated to be running a liquor vend at Mundka Border, Mewat. His income was stated to be Rs.30,000/- per month. It was pleaded that he was income-tax assessee for the year 2003-2004. Kehar Singh died in the accident which occurred on 15.08.2008. The Tribunal on the basis of the oral statement and the documents which were produced held that the claimants had failed to prove the income and assumed the income to be Rs.3,500/- per month as that of a labourer and allowed 30% increase towards future prospects and made a deduction of 1/4th and applied the multiplier of 14 to assess the compensation at Rs.5,73,300/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was added for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- was added for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- was added for funeral expenses, raising the total to Rs.6,03,300/-.

4. On the issue of the driving licence, it noted that the driving licence Ex. R-2 was tendered by the driver, which was got verified by the insurance company and found to be fake and subsequently another driving licence was introduced by the owner. It referred to Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act and also noticed that respondent no.1 was not a resident of West Bengal and therefore, the second driving licence Ex.R-8 could not be considered and gave recovery rights to the insurance company.

5. Arguments had concluded on 4th July 2017. But thereafter, the counsel for the appellants-claimants mentioned that appellant no.1- Bimla and one more appellant had died and the case was adjourned to get the death certificates and file the amended memo of parties. The counsel for the claimants-appellants failed to file the amended memo of parties or the death certificates and sought more time and the case was adjourned to 26.07.2017. The appellants instead of filing the amended memo of parties has filed an application for additional evidence and to place on record the income-tax return for the year 2005-2006 and receipt/form J. Another application (CM No.15445- CII-2017) had been filed to implead the LRs of Bimla.

6. Counsel for the insurance company has stated that she would make oral submissions with respect to the prayer made for additional evidence and there is no provision for filing an application for additional evidence after the arguments have been led.

7. I have heard counsel of both the sides.

8. Beginning the arguments, the counsel for the claimants urged that Kehar Singh was a Commission Agent and his death was reported in the newspaper. The counsel had referred to Annexure P-3. Counsel further submitted that a liquor vend had been allotted to the deceased for the year 2008-2009 and this fact can be seen from the report made on the summons Ex.PX. The counsel also referred to the photograph Mark-A to show the signboard on a shop and Mark-B Form 45-A to show that there was a deposit of license fee. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that they could not produce the documents earlier and they may be permitted to tender Form J and the copy of the ITR submitted by Kehar Singh for the year 2005-2006.

9. The submission on behalf of the insurance








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top