Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 1863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
AJIT AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA DEVI AND ANOTHER - Respondent
F.A.O. No. 4750 of 2011
Decided on : 23-05-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N.S. Shekhawat.
For the Respondent: Vishal Aggarwal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and its influence on the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident claim.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - 279, 337, 304-A, 427, Indian Penal Code - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The judgment discusses the liability of the driver and owner of a vehicle in a motor accident claim. It highlights the interpretation of the seating capacity and terms of the insurance policy, and the influence of these factors on the liability of the insurance company.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving, leading to his death. The claimants sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle's driver. It held the driver and owner liable to indemnify the compensation, while absolving the insurance company of its liability due to breach of the policy terms.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, validity of the driver's license, and relief sought by the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the seating capacity of the vehicle, the status of the passengers as gratuitous, and the breach of insurance policy terms, leading to the allocation of liability to the driver and owner, and absolving the insurance company of liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the Tribunal.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the impugned award dated 1.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, 'the learned Tribunal'), holding the appellants liable to indemnify the claimants. The brief facts of the appeal in hand are that on 10.11.2008, the deceased, Sunil Kumar, along with Ajay Kumar and Gurpal, residents of village Khaleta, was going to village Sisoth in a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. HR 66-3180, after delivering a buffalo at village Khaleta. It was the case of the claimants that the vehicle was driven by driver Ajit in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. When the vehicle reached near Siha Petrol Pump, it struck against a tractor-trolley going towards Dahina in its left side, as a result, the occupants of the vehicle received injuries. Sunil Kumar succumbed to his injuries. The driver of the tractor-trolley was also injured in the accident. F.I.R. No. 245 dated 11.11.2008 was registered against driver of pickup, respondent No. 1, under sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Khol, Distt. Rewari.
2. The legal representatives of deceased Sunil Kumar filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000. They pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the pickup by Ajit, respondent No. 1; that at the time of his death, the age of the deceased was about 19 years and had passed ITI examination; that he had received the joining call from the Defence Ministry and to join the service in near future. It was the further case of the claimants that the deceased might be getting Rs. 20,000 per month, had he been alive.
3. Upon notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner of the vehicle, denied the accident and the manner of accident. They also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The registration of the F.I.R. against respondent No. 1 was admitted, but the contents therein were denied.
4. The Future General Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, filed the reply and resisted the claim on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary party, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of true and material facts and not holding a valid and effective driving licence by respondent No. 1.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether deceased Sunil, son of Om Parkash, died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR 66-3180 by respondent No. 1 on 10.11.2008?
OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom?
OPP
(3) Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident?
OPR
(4) Relief.
6. In support of the claim petition, Om Parkash, father of the deceased, examined himself as PW 2 and other witnesses, namely, Ajay Kumar as PW 1, ASI Phool Singh, PW 3, and criminal ahlmad as PW 4 and tendered in evidence copy of postmortem report, Exh. P1.
7. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 has examined Ved Vyas Tripathi, Senior Executive Legal of Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd., as RW 1 and tendered his affidavit, Exh. RW 1/A, with other documents, Exhs. R5 and R6.
8. After analysing the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in affirmative and held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of pickup by Ajit, respondent No. 1. While deciding issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,30,400 to the claimants. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were held liable to indemnify the award, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
9. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants, driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle on the points of liability and qua
