Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1860
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sapna @ Sabita And Others - Respondent
Cross Objection No. 4 of 2016, 5 of 2016; First Appeal From Order No. 6584 of 2015, 6711 of 2015
Decided On : 08-11-2019
R.K. Bashamboo, Adv., Raj Kumar Rana, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of contributory negligence in motor accident claims and the reassessment of compensation based on the negligence of the parties involved.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 283, 336, 337 IPC - Mukhtiar Singh and others vs. Krishna Gulati and others,1987 ACJ 961 (P&H) - Manjit Kaur and others vs. Jagtar Singh and others, (2018) ACJ 275 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sandeep Madan, FAO No. 1667 of 1997, Ginni Devi vs. Union of India, (2008) ACJ 1572 (P&H) - Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (2001) ACJ 211 (P&H) - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 4 RCR(Civil) 1009 - Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 - Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs. Shyam Singh Varma & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4528 of 2019 [SLP(C) No. 5720 of 2019]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to another. The claimants sought compensation for the death and injuries caused by the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the negligence of the driver of the parked truck contributed to the accident, and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and reassessed the compensation payable to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accident was a case of contributory negligence and the assessment of compensation for the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver of the parked truck was negligent, and the absence of indicators on the parked vehicle contributed to the accident. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate claims for compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company, reduced the compensation awarded to the claimants, dismissed the cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation, and directed the Insurance Company to release the compensation with interest.
JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. - By this common order this Court proposes to dispose of FAO No. 6584 of 2015 titled "Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Sapna @ Sabita and others" along with its Cross Objection No. 4-CII of 2016 and FAO No. 6711 of 2015 titled "Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Deepak Kumar" along with its Cross Objection No. 5-CII of 2016 since all arise out of the same accident and common award dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 21.06.2013 around 6:00 p.m. Deepak Kumar (Cross-Objector in Cross Objection No. 5-CII of 2016) and one Bhupendra Singh (through his legal representatives in Cross Objection No. 4-CII of 2016) started their journey towards Sonam, Punjab in truck bearing registration No. UK08-CA-3441. In the morning around 4.00 a.m. on 22.06.2013, when they reached on G.T. Road, near Manji Sahib Gurudwara, AmbalaRajpura road, Ambala City, the driver was blinded by the lights of oncoming truck, with the result he swerved and hit into a truck bearing registration No. HR-55-P-6985. This truck was parked on the right side of the road without any indication light. The impact of the collision was such that the driver Bhupendra Singh suffered grievous injuries on both his legs, abdomen etc. while Deepak Kumar suffered grievous injuries on his right leg. They both were taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala City but Bhupendra Singh, who was serious, was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he died at about 11.30 p.m. on 22.06.2013. Deepak Kumar was shifted to N.P. Hospital, Ambala City and remained admitted there from 22.06.2013 to 25.06.2013. He gave a statement to the police on 22.06.2013, on the basis of which an FIR No. 299 dated 22.06.2013 was registered against respondent No.1 under Sections 283, 336, 337 IPC at Police Station Ambala City. In the FIR, it was stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 who had wrongly/ negligently parked truck No. HR-55-P-6985 on the right side of the road without any indicators or hazard lights on. A claim petition came to be filed by the legal heirs of Bhupendra Singh claiming compensation on account of his death. It was stated that he was earning more than Rs. 12,000/- per month as a driver and on account of his untimely death, they were on the verge of starvation. It was categorically averred that the accident took place due to the negligent parking of the truck No. HR-55-P-6985 by respondent No.1.
3. A second claim petition was filed by Deepak Kumar, on account of the injuries he suffered in the accident. He claimed compensation on account of his admission in the hospital, where he remained admitted from 22.06.2013 to 25.06.2013, where he was operated upon and thereafter he was shifted to Anand Hospital, Saharanpur, where his second operation was conducted. It was claimed that he had spent more than Rs. 1,50,000/- upon his treatment and remained admitted there for about 10 days. Deepak Kumar claimed compensation on account of the fact that he had become totally disabled and was unable to do any work. He claimed that he was a transporter having two trucks and was also doing the work of Commission Agent in agriculture and on account of his disability he lost the ability to work. It was stated that he was unable to drive car, motor cycle, scooter and even was unable to stand. Compensation was claimed on account of the negligent parking of truck No. HR-55-P-6985 by respondent No.1 on the right side of the road in total violation of the Traffic Rules as envisaged in the Motor Vehicles Act and that too without any light or indication to inform the others that there was a stationary truck.
4. The Tribunal framed issues after consolidating both the claim petitions. An issue was framed as
