Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Ram General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Krishna Devi And Others - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 8310 of 2014, 8317 of 2014, 7406 of 2014, 7407 of 2014, 4042 of 2014
Decided On : 07-01-2019
Rajbir Singh, Adv., Sanjeev Goyal, Adv., N.S. Shekhawat, Adv., Kiranjeet Kaur, Adv., Ravinder Malik, Adv., R.N. Singal, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of income of the deceased was based on established mode of assessment and rules/guidelines framed by the State, and the appellant's failure to raise objections during the evidence presentation influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Income Assessment - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Ex.P23, Ex.P27, Ex.P28 - The court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company against the award passed in favor of the claimants, as the income of the deceased was assessed based on established mode of assessment and rules/guidelines framed by the State. The court emphasized that no objection was raised by the appellant when the income certificate was tendered and received in evidence, and the document was duly exhibited. The court also referred to various legal precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a vehicular accident resulting in the death of individuals and claims for compensation filed by the claimants. The appeals were filed by the Insurance Company against the awards passed in favor of the claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the income of the deceased was assessed based on established mode of assessment and rules/guidelines framed by the State. The court emphasized that no objection was raised by the appellant when the income certificate was tendered and received in evidence, and the document was duly exhibited. The court also referred to various legal precedents to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the assessment of the deceased's income and the objections raised by the Insurance Company against the awards passed in favor of the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the income of the deceased was assessed based on established mode of assessment and rules/guidelines framed by the State. The court also emphasized that no objection was raised by the appellant when the income certificate was tendered and received in evidence, and the document was duly exhibited. The court also referred to various legal precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company against the awards passed in favor of the claimants.
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Vide this common order, FAO No. 8310 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Krishna Devi and others', FAO No. 8317 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Murti Devi and others', FAO No. 7406 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'Smt. Murti Devi and another vs Raj Kumar and others', FAO No. 7407 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'Uttam Sharma and another vs Raj Kumar and others' and FAO No. 4042 of 2014 (O&M) titled 'Smt. Krishna Devi and others vs Raj Kumar and others' are being disposed of.
Common facts are being noticed.
2. The vehicular accident took place on 27.03.2011. Pala Ram along with Man Singh (deceased) and Jiya Lal (deceased) was coming from Kurukshetra to Pehowa in a Maruti Zen car. The car was being driven by Man Singh. At about 12.30 PM, when they reached near a petrol pump in the area of village Indbari, then a canter came in rash and negligent manner which was being driven by Raj Kumar- driver at a very high speed and the canter dashed in the car after coming over to wrong side of the road. Resultantly, Pala Ram suffered multiple serious injuries. Man Singh and Jiya Lal also received serious injuries on various parts of body. The accident was witnessed by Jai Singh and Tek Singh who took the then injured in the hospital and Man Singh and Jiya Lal were declared to be dead.
3. Fir was registered against the driver of the offending canter. The Tribunal decided issues No.1 to 3 in favour of the claimants and allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.
FAO No. 8310 of 2014:
4. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed in favour of the claimants whereby an amount of Rs.24,60,000/- was awarded to the claimants on account of death of Man Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Ex.P23 and contended that solely on the basis of Income Certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Thanesar, income of the deceased- Man Singh was treated to be Rs.5,40,000/- per annum. There was no corroboration to the aforesaid fact except tendering of aforesaid document without examining the Tehsildar. The aforesaid certificate was issued only for the purposes of education.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that factum of earning of the deceased to the tune of Rs.60,000/- from dairy farming could not be established. The agriculture land remained with the family of the deceased even after death, therefore, to the extent of assessing agriculture income was not in consonance with legal requirement.
7. The stand of the appellant/Insurance Company was refuted by learned counsel for the claimants on the ground that proper assessment was made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of material on record. The income certificate Ex.P23 was issued on the basis of material available on record. Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 (Ex.P27) was taken into consideration by the Tehsildar while assessing the land available with the deceased and the income derived therefrom. As per sale deed Ex.P28, the financial capacity of the deceased was established as he had purchased a house measuring 260 square yards in Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra vide sale deed dated 26.09.2008. The financial earning capacity of the deceased was established on record by way of unimpeachable evidence on record.
8. At the time of tendering of Income Certificate Ex.P23, no objection was raised by the appellant-Insurance Company. The documents were tendered by learned counsel for the claimants by making statement before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra on 18.09.2013 and thereafter, learned counsel for the claimants closed the evidence on behalf of the claimants on 18.09.2013 itself.
9. Perusal of the record would show that at the time of exhibition of aforesaid document, no objection was raised by learned counsel for the appellant and the document was duly exhibited. Perusal of cross-examination of PW6 would show that the income of deceased-
