IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURBIR SINGH, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mamta Rani & Ors. – Respondents
FAO-4527 of 2023 (O&M) AND FAO-4529-2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the motor accident and its consequences. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim that the deceased was negligent. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's assessment of negligence and liability. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. issues on joint tortfeasors and liability. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. dismissal of the appeals. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Gurbir Singh, J.
All the above said three appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company arising out of a common award dated 15.04.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, whereby the claim petitions i.e. MACP/86/2020 (FAO No.4527 of 2023), MACP/82/2020 (FAO No.4529 of 2023) and MACP/85/2020 (FAO No.4531 of 2023) have been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a motor vehicular accident took place on 12.09.2019. As per the common pleadings of the claimants on 08.09.2019, Deval Sharma, Gaurav, Mamta, Mehak and Darpan were travelling in a car bearing registration No.HR04-C-6160, which was being driven by Deval Sharma. On the intervening night of 11/12.09.2019 at about 12.00 'O' clock (midnight), when they reached near Hotel Shree Ram within the area of Village Thana Gujran, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, on Kaithal-Ambala road, two trucks were going ahead of said car. Both the trucks were being driven parallel to each other by their respective drivers. Deval Sharma was driving his car on his correct left side of the road at moderate speed. Respondent-Jaspal Singh, who was driving truck No.HR65-A-6400 and was going ahead of the car of Deval Sharma. On seeing the Hotel Shree Ram, said truck driver, without giving any signal, indication and without following the traffic rules, applied sudden brakes. As a result of which, rear side of the truck struck against the front side of the car of Deval Sharma. Due to the impact of the accident, all the occupants of the car suffered multiple grievous injuries. They were taken to CHC, Pehowa. Injured Mehak was declared as brought dead. Injured Deval Sharma was referred to Civil Hospital, Kurukshetra, but he was taken to Anand Orthopaedic Centre, Kurukshetra where he was admitted in neurosurgery department for treatment. Due to his serious condition, he was advised to be taken to some other hospital for proper management and treatment. He was then taken to Jindal Hospital, Yamuna Nagar from there he was immediately referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but due to non-availability of ventilator at PGI, his family shifted him to Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula, where he remained admitted from 14.09.2019 to 18.09.2019 and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. On the basis of evidence led on the file, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.HR65-A-6400 by the respondent-Jaspal Singh, causing death to Deval Sharma and Mehak and injuries to Mamta and Darpan. Petitions were allowed and compensation was accordingly awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased Deval Sharma, who while driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and without caring for the heavy traffic on the highway, hit the truck going ahead of it from behind for not maintaining proper and safe distance between two vehicles moving in the same direction. Had Deval Sharma maintained safe and proper distance while driving the car, then he would have avoided hitting the truck. The Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 is as under:-
4. In fact, the deceased Deval Sharma himself was responsible for the accident as he was driving the car at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel has relied upon
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited
Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Regional Manager
Liability for vehicular accidents entails that claimants can seek compensation from negligent parties, with joint tortfeasors both liable for full damages.
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging negligence, and failure to maintain sufficient distance does not automatically imply liability without evidence.
A finding of negligence must be substantiated by evidence; the burden remains on the parties contesting liability.
Both vehicle drivers were found equally negligent in the accident leading to liability shared between their insurance companies.
The insurance company must prove the non-existence of a policy at the time of an accident to avoid liability, and the burden of proof lies with them.
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.