Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mitesh Kumar and Others – Respondent
FAO No. 582 of 2016
Decided On : 25-01-2016
For the Appellant :Subhash Goyal and Nitin Mittal, Advocates
The judgment established the principle that the contribution of a home maker to the family's income should be recognized and considered in the assessment of compensation for loss of income, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421; Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54; Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. National Insurance Company and others, AIR 2010 SC 3426
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident where the deceased, a home maker, was hit by a truck and subsequently died due to her injuries. The claimants, her husband and two minor children, sought compensation for loss of income, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the claimants, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The court rejected the appellant Insurance Company's argument to reduce the compensation, emphasizing the contribution of a home maker to the family's income and the assessment of loss of future income.
Issues: The main issues were the assessment of compensation for a deceased home maker, including loss of future income, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, and Arun Kumar Agrawal and another Vs. National Insurance Company and others to determine the compensation, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the contribution of a home maker to the family's income and the assessment of loss of future income.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company, upholding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
1. This appeal by the appellant Insurance Company, impugns the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, dated 17.11.2015, by which respondents No. 1 to 3 have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,87,560/-, alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual realisation thereof.
The said respondents are the husband and two minor children respectively, of late Smt. Bimla, who is stated to have died after a truck owned by respondent No. 5 and driven by respondent No. 4 struck against her and ran over both her legs.
The accident is stated to have taken place on 18.04.2013, when respondent No. 1 and Bimla were making some purchase at Biswa Mill Chowk. Bimla is said to have been standing on the road side while her husband was making purchases from a handcart. The time is shown to be 10:30 AM, when a truck bearing registration No.HR-55-K-9398 came from the side of village Jatheri at a very fast speed, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner.
The truck is stated to have hit Bimla and run over her legs, after which respondent No. 4, who was driving the truck, stopped the vehicle at some distance, came back and gave his name to be Jai Bhagwan. However, while respondent No. 1 was looking after his wife, Jai Bhagwan is stated to have fled away from the spot. Bimla was taken to hospital in an ambulance, medico-legally examined and referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. However, respondent No. 1 started taking her to Delhi instead but she succumbed to her injuries on the way and was brought back to the General Hospital, Sonepat.
An FIR is also stated to have been registered against respondent No. 4 at Police Station, Rai, District Sonepat, on the statement of respondent No. 1.
2. In the claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal, deceased Bimla Devi is shown to have been doing the work of tailoring and stitching in the village where she resided with her family, from which she is stated to have been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, other than maintaining her home and looking after the claimants. Due to her untimely death, other than mental shock, agony and tension that the claimants went through, for which they claimed compensation, loss of future income of the deceased was also claimed, with a total of Rs. 30,00,000/- sought by way of compensation.
3. Respondents No. 4 and 5 (respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal) filed a joint written statement, denying the accident and claiming false implication.
The appellant Insurance Company (respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal) filed a separate written statement, claiming that the owner of the vehicle (presently respondent No. 5) had breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and further that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4.
Other than that, the compensation claimed was also disputed, as highly exaggerated.
4. Respondent No. 1 appeared as PW1 before the Tribunal and reiterated the facts given in the claim petition.
In his cross-examination, nothing adverse could be elicited from him.
He also examined one Narinder Kumar, an Additional Ahlmad, with regard to the criminal case registered against respondent No. 4.
Copies of the FIR, the post mortem report, of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., of the site plan and of the charge sheet against respondent No. 4, were also produced in evidence as exhibits, by respondent No. 1.
5. The respondents did not lead any evidence whatsoever, in their defence. In fact, as recorded in the impugned Award, even the driver of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 4), did not step into the witness box to rebut the allegations made against him in the claim petition and the documentary evidence submitted.
Consequently, on the issue of negligence, the learned Tribunal held in favour of the claimants and thereafter proceeded to assess the compensation to be awarde
