Accident – Insurance – Fitness Certificate – Non production of fitness certificate neither amounts to breach of policy nor it a defense available to issue
Accident – Loss of Dependency – Pension – Claimants shall be entitled to benefits of difference of pension and family pension.

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral)- This order will dispose of FAO Nos.2851 to 2853, 10228, 10281, 10380 of 2014 and cross objections No.42-CII of 2015 in FAO No.2853 of 2014 and cross objections No.44-CII of 2015 in FAO No.2852

2. FAO Nos.2851 to 2853 of 2014 have been filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of Tavera Car No.PB-13-Q-8297 involved in the accident dated 14.02.2010 whereas FAO Nos.10228, 10281 and 10380 of 2014 have been filed by Charanjit Singh, owner of Truck Trolla No.HR-58-9819, another vehicle involved in the accident. Cross objections No.42-CII of 2015 in FAO No.2853 of 2014 and cross objections No.44-CII of 2015 in FAO No.2852 of 2014 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Dimplejit Kaur and Mohinder Singh respectively.

3. For the sake of convenience, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be referred to as ‘Insurance Company’, New India Assurance Company Ltd. as ‘the insurer’, Charanjit Singh as ‘the appellant’ and cross objectors as ‘claimants’.

FAO Nos.2851 to 2853 of 2014

4. The sole submission made by counsel for the Insurance Company is that though the Tribunal has attributed rashness and negligence exclusively to the driver of Truck No.HR-58-9819 in causing the accident due to which Mohinder Singh and Dimplejit Kaur, occupants of car No.PB13-Q-8297 sustained injuries that proved fatal and damage to the aforesaid car but still the Tribunal has held the Insurance Companies of both the vehicles involved in the accident liable to pay compensation to the extent of 50% each. It is argued with vehemence that as no negligence in causing the accident has been attributed to driver of the car insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., no liability to pay compensation can be fastened upon the said Insurance Company.

5. Counsel representing the insurer of Truck in question while refuting contentions of counsel for the Insurance Company would argue that as the Tribunal in para 30 of the award passed in MACT case No.19 of 19.02.2011 has held that there being head-on collision, both the Insurance Companies are liable to make payment in equal share, therefore, findings recorded by the Tribunal fastening liability against both the Insurance Companies are liable to be affirmed.

6. The Tribunal in the case Pritpal Singh Vs. Surjit Singh and others filed for grant of compensation on account of damage to Tavera Car framed issue No.1 to the following effect:-

“1. Whether the Tavera Car bearing registration No.PB-13Q-8297 was damaged on 14.02.2010, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Surjit Singh while driving the truck trolla No.HR-58-9819? OPP”

7. Issue No.1 was answered along with issue No.2 taken up jointly. In paras 21 and 22 of the award, it has been held, reads thus:-

“21. All these above referred facts go to show that Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.PB-13Q-8297 was damaged as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-58-9819 driven by respondent No.1.

22. This Court is of the opinion that as per settled law whenever it is brought on record that the criminal proceedings have been initiated regarding the accident in question, that is sufficient for the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the accident had taken place. In this regard, this court is fortified by Lakhu Singh and another Vs. Uday Singh and others, [2007(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3460] : 2008 ACJ 1608. Accordingly, it stands proved on record that on 14.02.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. in the area of village Harike, District Tarn Taran Car make Tavera registration No. PB-13Q-8297 was badly damaged in the said accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.HR-58- 9819. The vehicle in question belonged to the claimant has also been proved on the record.”

8. The Tribunal has recorded categoric findings that a