IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Tagore, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeet Singh & Ors.- Respondents
F.A.O. No. 1451 of 2019
Decided On : 19-03-2024
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation, emphasizing the driver's liability and the proper assessment of damages under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was killed in a motorcycle accident caused by a tractor driven negligently by the respondent. The claimants sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, asserting the driver's fault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent driver was negligent, causing the accident, and upheld the Tribunal's award of compensation, rejecting the Insurance Company's claims of contributory negligence.
Issues: Whether the accident was caused by the respondent's negligence and if the claimants were entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the burden of proof for negligence lies with the claimants, but the evidence presented sufficiently established the respondent's liability.
Result: The appeal by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Tagore, J.
This is Insurance Company’s appeal against the award dated 08.10.2018, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, granting compensation of Rs.9,66,064/- to the claimants along with 7.5% interest.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as their status before the learned Tribunal.
3. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under :-
4. FIR No.428 dated 08.09.2017 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, 1860 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Ballabhgarh against the respondent No.1, on the statement of Haribhan Singh.
5. The LRs of deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pleading deceased was aged 17 years, well built and an energetic individual. Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was sought for untimely death of the deceased.
6. When put to notice, respondents (driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle) appeared and filed their respective replies. Respondents denied the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Additionally, Insurance Company pleaded that respondent No.1 had no valid and effective DL at the time of the accident and vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and deceased, too, had no driving licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, accident took place due to the fault of the deceased, resulting in his death. Allegation of institution of a false case in collusion with the police was raised to oppose the grant of compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of petition was made.
7. Learned Tribunal from the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-
2. If issue No.1, is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.
4. Whether the respondent was not holding a valid or effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident or that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company? OPR
5. Relief
8. The parties presented the evidence as detailed in the impugned award. Learned Tribunal after assessment of evidence, concluded that respondent No.1 caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into the death of deceased and awarded compensation as mentioned above.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal erred in law while returning findings on issue No.1. Learned counsel stated that learned Tribunal failed to notice that offending vehicle was involved after a delay of 09 days of the accident with no plausible explanation as to how Haribhan Singh (PW-3) came to know of the vehicle, particularly when on the next date of accident on 08.09.2017, he reported to the police that
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’ 2009 (3) RCR(Civ) 77
The court clarified the liability of insurers in accident claims under the MV Act, especially regarding compensation calculations and the assessment of evidence.
In motor accident claims, negligence is determined by the preponderance of probability. Income and age should be assessed using reliable statutory documents like tax returns and official identity car....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.