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

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
FAO- 1539 of 2016 (O&M)
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
v.
Ompati & Ors
{Decided of 15/02/2018}

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3:Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate.

Accident – Permit of Vehicle – Plea that vehicle being plied without a permit cannot be raised in appeal for first time.
Accident – Route Permit – Non-possessing of a route permit or deviation from the route does not constitute a defence in favour of the insurance company.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 – Accident – Permit of Vehicle – Plea that vehicle being plied without a permit cannot be entertained in appeal as no such factual controversy was raised by the Insurance Company in its reply to the petition – Rather plea raised by the Insurance Company was that the vehicle was being plied without a route permit – As per the settled position in law, non-possessing of a route permit or deviation from the route does not constitute a defence in favour of the insurance company. (Para 12)

       (B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 – Accident – Interest on Compensation – It should be awarded @ 9% per annum. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- The present appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited directs challenge against award dated 2.1.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (in short “the Tribunal”) whereby compensation has been awarded on account of death of Pardeep Kumar, son of claimant Smt. Ompati.

2. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,37,200/-, detailed hereunder:-

Monthly income of the deceased

Rs. 8100/-

Addition in income for future prospects

50%

Multiplier

18

Deduction for personal expenses

50%

Loss of dependency

6075X12x18=Rs.13,12,200/-

Expenses on funeral and transportation

Rs. 25000/-

3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pardeep Kumar initially sustained injuries on 17.1.2015 when his motor cycle was hit by a tractor-trolly. On 18.1.2015, while the injured was being taken to PGI, Chandigarh in Ambulance bearing No. HR-64-4719, there was an accident because of the alleged rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration No. UP-11AT-0547. According to counsel, as the injured sustained injuries in the occurrence dated 17.1.2015 and was in the process of being shifted to PGI, Chandigarh for his treatment, death of Pardeep Kumar cannot be attributed to sole rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero Pick-up.

4. To assail quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, it is argued that the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 8100/- per month but the minimum wage fixed by the State of Haryana and available at the relevant time was Rs. 5812.75P. Benefit of increase in income for future prospects is liable to be restricted to 40% in the light of latest judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, [2017(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2970 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1565] : 2017 SCC 1270.

5. Another submission made by counsel is that as owner of the vehicle did not produce permit for verification by the insurance company, the insurance company is entitled to recovery right against the insured after indemnifying the claimant. With regard to rate of interest, it is argued that the Tribunal has allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is on higher side.

6. There is no representation on behalf of the claimant who failed to cause appearance despite service.

7. Counsel representing respondents No. 2 and 3 while refuting contention of counsel for the insurance company with regard to grant of recovery right has submitted that the insurance company did not raise an issue that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit.

8. Perusal of averments raised in para 2 of the award would indicate that initially Pardeep Kumar sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.1.2015. He was being shifted to PGI, Chandigarh from Saha Hospital, Kaithal. The present occurrence took place when the injured was being shifted in Ambulance No. HR-64-4719 driven by Mehar Chand. The accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero Pick-up became the immediate cause of death of Pardeep Kumar. Under the circumstances, driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle cannot escape their liability to pay compensation for death of Pardeep Kumar.

9. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased on the basis of wage fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra vide order dated 1.7.2014. However, the minimum wage fixed by the State of Haryana and available at the relevant time was Rs. 5812.75P per month. The DC rates are available for giving employment in different government departments on daily wage basis or may be ad hoc basis. Under the circumstances, in view of minimum wage available at the relevant time, income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 5850/- per month. The claimant shall






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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