Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2285
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Gurjinder Pal Singh And Others - Respondent
FAO No. 1654 of 2014 (O&M), FAO No. 1655 of 2014 (O&M), FAO No. 5716 of 2014 (O&M), FAO No. 5717 of 2014 (O&M)and FAO No. 2107 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Mr.Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.M.S.Longia, Advocate, for the Respondent
Legal representatives are entitled to file claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, and contributory negligence cannot be presumed without specific evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166, Section 2(11), Fatal Accident Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple appeals arising from claim petitions related to a fatal accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a truck, resulting in the death of two individuals and damage to a car. The claimants, sons of the deceased, sought compensation for the loss of their parents and damage to the car. The insurance company contested the claim petitions, alleging contributory negligence and collusion between the claimants and the truck owner/driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the claimants, as legal representatives, were entitled to file the claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, irrespective of dependency on the deceased. The court rejected the plea of contributory negligence and collusion, upholding the finding of the tribunal that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The court also assessed the compensation for the claimants, enhancing the amount awarded by the tribunal.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of legal representatives to file claim petitions, contributory negligence, and collusion between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that legal representatives are entitled to file claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of dependency on the deceased. The court also emphasized that contributory negligence cannot be presumed without specific evidence and rejected the plea of collusion due to lack of substantiating evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the insurance company and upheld the compensation awarded to the claimants, enhancing the amount in some cases.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - All the above said appeals, i.e. FAO Nos. 1654, 1655, 2107, 5716 and 5717 of 2014 are taken up for hearing and decision together as they emanate from claim petitions arising out of the accident which took place on 22.09.2012 though the petitions have been decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (here in after referred to 'the Tribunal') vide separate awards of even date.
FAO Nos. 1654 and 1655 of 2014 have been filed by the insurance company challenging award dated 10.12.2013 in MACT No. 129 of 26.10.2012 and MACT No. 130 of 26.10.2012, respectively.
FAO No. 2107 of 2014 filed by the insurance company arises out of MACT No. 131 of 26.10.2012 in respect to damage to the Alto car.
FAO Nos. 5716 & 5717 of 2014 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of death of Jaswinder Kaur and Manmohan Singh, vide award dated 10.12.2013 in MACT No. 129 of 26.10.2012 and MACT No. 130 of 26.10.2012, respectively.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that it is pleaded in the claim petitions that Jaswinder Kaur and her husband Manmohan Singh (both deceased) were returning home from Rahon to Roopnagar on 22.09.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. in an Alto car bearing registration No. PB-12-P-3270. Manmohan Singh was stated to be driving his car with due care and caution. Bachittar Singh (PW2) was following the vehicle of the deceased on his Scorpio jeep. When the Alto car driven by Manmohan Singh reached the revenue estate of village Asron near DCM factory, the offending Truck bearing registration No. HR-68-1688 driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, by coming towards the wrong side of the road struck against the car in which Jaswinder Kaur and Manmohan Singh were travelling. Both Jaswinder Kaur and Manmohan Singh died at the spot. FIR No. 50 dated 22.09.2012 (Ex.Pl) was registered at Police station Kathgarh, Tehsil Balachaur. It is stated that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants, who are the sons of Jaswinder Kaur and Manmohan Singh, preferred two claim petitions i.e. MACT Nos. 129 and 130 of 26.10.2012 seeking compensation on account of death of both their parents. MACT No. 131 of 26.10.2012 was preferred by Raghbir Singh owner of the Alto car seeking compensation on account of damage to the vehicle.
4. Jaswinder Kaur was stated to be 55 years old, a house wife and also imparting tuitions to children, thereby earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
5. Manmohan Singh was claimed to be 60 years old, running a shop in the name and style of Jattana Photo Frame Works and Reality Group (Property Dealer) near Bela Chowk, Roopnagar and earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The details of his PAN card were disclosed.
6. All to car was stated to be totally damaged in the accident in question. Compensation was, thus, prayed for.
7. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle initially appeared but written statement was not filed on their behalf and they were ultimately proceeded ex-parte on 18.02.2013.
8. The insurance company contested the claim petitions claiming that no cause of action had accrued to the claimants. Connivance between the claimants, owner and driver of the offending truck was pleaded.
9. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues in MACT No.129 of 26.10.2012:-
1. Whether Jaswinder Kaur died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 22.09.2012 at about 11.30 AM in area of village Asron with Truck bearing No. HR-68-1688 being driven by respondent No. 1?OPP.
2. Whether respondent No. 1 - driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect? OPR
3. Whether vehicle in question was being driven without valid RC, route permit and f
