Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Surjeet Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
FAO No. 2558 of 2016 (O&M) and XOBJC-139-CII of 2016
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The liability of the owner and insurer arises from the 'use of the vehicle' and default thereof, not necessarily from the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The claimants are granted compensation on account of loss of an earning member of the family, and the determining factor for entitlement and amount of compensation is the loss suffered by them.
Headnote:
Liability - Motor Vehicle Accident - Regulations of 1989, Motor Vehicle Act 1988 - 23, 24, 146, 150, 151, 164, 165, 166 - The court found the respondent Insurance company liable for 70%, and the appellant Insurance company liable for 30% of the compensation to be reimbursed to the claimants. The court held that the liability of the owner and insurer arises from the 'use of the vehicle' and default thereof, not necessarily from the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The court also emphasized that the claimants are granted compensation on account of loss of an earning member of the family, and the determining factor for entitlement and amount of compensation is the loss suffered by them.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident where the claimants filed petitions for compensation for the injuries sustained and the deceased victims. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, holding the appellant Insurance company liable for the payment. The respondent Insurance company was absolved of liability by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent Insurance company liable for 70%, and the appellant Insurance company liable for 30% of the compensation to be reimbursed to the claimants. The court emphasized that the liability of the owner and insurer arises from the 'use of the vehicle' and default thereof, not necessarily from the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The court also highlighted that the claimants are granted compensation on account of loss of an earning member of the family, and the determining factor for entitlement and amount of compensation is the loss suffered by them.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the liability of the Insurance companies for the compensation to be paid to the claimants for the motor vehicle accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability of the owner and insurer arises from the 'use of the vehicle' and default thereof, not necessarily from the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The court also emphasized that the claimants are granted compensation on account of loss of an earning member of the family, and the determining factor for entitlement and amount of compensation is the loss suffered by them.
Final Decision: The respondent Insurance company is held liable for 70%, whereas the appellant Insurance company is held liable for 30% of the compensation to be reimbursed to the claimants. The appeals filed by the Insurance company are partly allowed, and the cross objections are dismissed as withdrawn.
ORDER
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral). - This shall dispose of the above mentioned five appeals filed by the Insurance company and cross objections filed by the claimants, since these appeals and cross objections have arisen from the same accident, though from the claim petitions filed separately by the legal representatives of the four deceased and by one of the injured. The facts are being taken from FAO No. 2558 of 2016.
2. The parties herein are referred to as the claimants and respondents as they are referred to in the original claim petitions.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are; that on 6.2.2014 Jitender Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Narender Pal Singh, Raminder Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Harbhajan Singh were going to Amritsar from Delhi in a Innova car bearing registration No. DL-10-CE-2458. Kuldeep Singh and Harbhajan Singh were sitting on the rear seat whereas, the car was bring driven by Amarjeet Singh. When they reached in the area between Pipli and Shahbad on the national highway, the truck/tanker bearing registration No. MP-09-HG- 9347, which was going ahead of the Innova car, suddenly applied breaks. As a result, the accident had taken place. Due to the accident, the occupants of the Innova car received serious injuries. Jitender Singh, Raminder Singh and Narinder Pal Singh succumbed to their injuries at the spot, whereas, Amarjeet Singh died at LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. Harbhajan Singh survived as injured. On account of accident, a criminal case bearing FIR No. 46 dated 6.2.2014 was also registered at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar. Challan had been filed in the said case against respondent No.1, the driver of the alleged offending tanker. In the above said gamut of facts, four claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the 5th was filed by the injured himself for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
4. On being put to notice, the respondent Insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle denied the accident happening in the manner as mentioned in the claim petitions. On the contrary, it was claimed; that it has happened because of the negligence of the driver of the Innova car. The respondent Insurance company even denied the accident as ever having happened.
5. The claimants examined the injured eye witness Harbhajan Singh as PW-3; besides other relevant witnesses. The driving licence of the driver of Innova car - Amarjeet Singh was also produced in evidence. However, no evidence was led by either the driver and owner of the offending tanker or by the respondent Insurance company.
6. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as under :
1. Rs.34,99,300/- in CIS (MACP) Case No. 156 of 2014,
2. Rs.64,82,552/- in CIS (MAC) Case No. 175 of 2015,
3. Rs. 5,91,220/- in CIS (MACP) Case No. 176 of 2014,
4. Rs. 5,91,120/- in CIS (MACP) Case No. 300 of 2014,
5. Rs. 19,74,153/- in CIS (MACP) Case No. 320 of 2014.
7. However, the respondent Insurance company, the Insurer of the tanker, was absolved by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the Innova car was required to maintain a safe distance, in which he failed. Therefore, the owner of the Innova car, and consequently, the appellant Insurance company, the insurer of the said Innova car, was held liable to make the payment. Challenging the said award, the present appeals have been filed by the Insurance company of the Innova car. For claiming enhancement, the claimants have filed cross objections.
8. While arguing the case, the solitary argument raised by counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has gone wrong in law in absolving the respondent Insurance company. The evidence led on the file categorically proves that it was the driver of the offending tanker who was negligent in driving the same. The eye witness has duly been examined to prove the assertions of the claimants. The Tribunal has totally ignored the version of the eye witness and has proceeded only on assumption
