Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4278
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Chanan Kaur - Respondent
FAO-45-2013 (O&M) and XOBJC-3-CII-2014
Decided On : 22-11-2018
Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the Appellant in FAO-45-2013; Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1/cross-Objector
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for individual assessment in accident cases, the importance of credible evidence in determining compensation, and the application of appropriate multipliers.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - The court discussed the negligence of the driver, assessment of compensation, and contributory negligence. It highlighted the need for individual assessment in accident cases and the importance of credible evidence in determining compensation. The court also emphasized the application of appropriate multipliers and the need for future prospects consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of an individual in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants contested the negligence of the driver and sought enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the claimants regarding negligence and assessed the compensation amount. It dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and ordered a reassessment of the compensation amount.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the driver, entitlement to compensation, maintainability of the claim petition, validity of the driver's license, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for individual assessment in accident cases, the importance of credible evidence in determining compensation, and the application of appropriate multipliers. It also highlighted the need for future prospects consideration and the dismissal of contributory negligence claims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and ordered a reassessment of the compensation amount in favor of the claimants.
JUDGMENT
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral) - CM-720-CII-2014 in XOBJ-3-CII-2014:
In view of the averments made in the application and which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 258 in refiling the Cross Objections, is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
FAO-45-2013 (O&M) and XOBJC-3-CII-2014
This order shall dispose of FAO-45-2013 (New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Chanan Kaur & others) and Cross Objections No.3- CII-2014 as these arise out of award dated 06.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar.
2. FAO-45-2013 has been filed at the hands of the appellant/ Insurance Company assailing the award dated 06.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar and in terms of which a compensation amount of Rs. 3,56,000/- has been awarded on account of death of Rajinder Singh @ Lucky in a motor vehicle accident. Cross objections are filed at the hands of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of death of Rajinder Singh @ Lucky in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 06.11.2009. Claimants were the parents and brother of the deceased. It was asserted that on the fateful day, at about 7:10 P.M., Rajinder Singh @ Lucky (since deceased) was proceeding on a motorcycle and was driving the same with due care and at a normal speed. When he was reached in the area of village Daroli, main road in front of Baba Balak Nath Mandir, then a truck/tanker bearing registration No.HR- 38-M-8947 was standing on the road and without any parking lights or reflector. On account of the dazzling lights of the oncoming traffic, Rajinder Singh @ Lucky (Since deceased) struck into the rear portion of the stationery truck/ tanker. On account of the impact, Rajinder Singh @ Lucky suffered multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Accident is stated to have been witnessed by Tarlochan Singh S/o Teja Singh and Gurpal Singh S/o Gurdial Singh, who were following the deceased on their scooter. After the accident, eye witnesses, Tarlochan Singh as also Gurpal Singh brought Rajinder Singh @ Lucky to BBMB Hospital Nangal for treatment but he was declared dead on arrival. FIR No.123 dated 07.11.2009 was got registered on the statement of eye witness Tarlochan Singh.
4. Claim petition having been filed, the same was contested in terms of filing of written statement by respondent No.1, Vidya Dhar i.e. driver of the offending vehicle as also in terms of filing of a written statement by respondent No.3 i.e. the New India Insurance Company Limited. Respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle even though duly served did not appear and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2012. Respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle in his written statement admitted the accident that took place on 06.11.2009 as also the FIR No.123 dated 07.11.2009 having been registered against him. He, however, stated that the claimants have claimed excess amount of compensation. Insurance Company in its written statement denied the accident and set up a plea that the claim petition had been filed by the claimants in connivance with the driver and owner of the vehicle. That apart, preliminary objections with regard to the driver of the offending vehicle not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident was also taken. Yet another preliminary objection taken was that the offending vehicle was not having valid route permit and fitness certificate.
5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
"1. Whether Rajinder Singh received injuries in a vehicular roadside accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving a truck tanker No.HR-38M-8947 in a
