SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2950

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
Karamjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Amandeep Singh & Anr. – Respondents
FAO-4283 of 2017
Decided On : 24-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Dushant Jog, Advocate for Mr. T.V.S. Lehal, Advocate; For the Appellant(in FAO-4283-2017) for Respondent No.1 (in FAO-6229-2017).
Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate; For the Appellant(in FAO-6229-2017) for Respondent No.1 (in FAO-4283-2017).
Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140 and 166 - Compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant modified from Rs.6,84,582/- to Rs.8,26,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum due to injuries sustained in an accident - Tribunal’s assessment deemed inadequate considering the grievous injuries and resulting disability. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 25)

(B) Liability and Insurance - The driver-owner's liability upheld despite claims of a fake driving license not proven as evidence lacked corroboration. (Paras 28, 30)

(C) Appeal - The appeal mechanism reaffirms that Tribunal's decisions must be scrutinized for adequacy of compensation considering physical impairment and loss of earnings. (Paras 10, 11, 24)

Facts of the case:
The accident occurred due to negligent driving, leaving the appellant with severe injuries and resultant permanent disability; previous income was stated as Rs.25,000/- per month before the accident leading to claims for compensation.

Findings of Court:
The earned income of the appellant was adjusted in view of the injuries with future losses and medical expenses resulting in a comprehensive compensation award.

Issues: Addressed the adequacy of compensation relative to physical disability and the insurance company's liability in light of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: It was held that evidence must clearly substantiate claims regarding negligence and capacity to work after sustained injuries, and without such proof, claims by the insurance company for exemptions are unfounded.

Result: Appeals partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the accident and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's analysis on the evidence and testimonies. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 17)
3. arguments regarding negligence and causation. (Para 12 , 13)
4. determination of compensation and liability. (Para 21 , 22 , 24)
5. final conclusion on compensation awarded. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

This order shall dispose of FAO-4283-2017 ( Karamjit Singh v. Amandeep Singh and another) and FAO-6229-2017 ( Amandeep Singh v. Karamjit Singh and another) as both the appeals have arisen from a common award dated 11.01.2017.

2. This appeal (FAO-4283-2017) has been filed by the appellant-claimant for modification of award dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant invoking the provisions of Section 166 /140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988") was partly allowed and he was awarded a compensation of Rs.6,84,582/- and exonerating respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, respondent No.1 (driver-owner) of offending vehicle was directed to pay the amount of compensation positively within two months from the date of passing the award, failing which the appellant was held to be entitled to get the interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.09.2014.

3. This appeal (FAO-6229-2017) has been filed by the appellant (driver-owner) of offending vehicle seeking to absolve his liability by setting aside the award qua him.

4. The relevant facts are that on 27.09.2014, appellant/claimant- Karamjit Singh along with his father-Dilpreet Singh was going from village Malan Jhalian towards village Bama Khulian on a motorcycle which was being driven by him, whereas his father was pillion rider. At about 9.00 P.M., when they reached near village Chaunta Bhani on Ropar-Bela road, a Honda Twister Motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12R(T)-7535, being driven by its driver-cum-owner Amandeep Singh (appellant in FAO-6229- 2017), in a rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side and hit the motorcycle appellant-claimant. Due to the said collision, the appellant-claimant and his father fell down on the road along with the motorcycle and appellant-claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries on his right leg, right arm and others parts of body. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Ropar, from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and he remained admitted there from 28.09.2014 to 03.10.2014. During treatment he was operated upon and thereafter also he was regularly going to PGI, Chandigarh for follow up treatment. He also got treatment from Sangha Hospital, Ropar, where he remained admitted from 15.10.2014 to 28.10.2014 and was again operated upon. Finally, his right arm was amputated on 21.10.2014 and he is still under treatment. Though on 28.09.2014 police officials visited him at PGI, Chandigarh and obtained his signatures on blank papers, but later on he came to know that no FIR had been registered by the police. Thereafter, he lodged complaint and thereafter FIR No.178, dated 04.11.2014, under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered at Police Station, Chamkaur Sahib, against Amandeep Singh driver of the offending vehicle.

5. It has been averred by appellant-claimant in his claim petition that he has become permanently disabled and is confined to bed and has become unemployed. He had spent Rs.2,00,000/- on his medical treatment excluding the attendant charges. Prior to the accident, he was hale and hearty and was the sole bread earner of his family. He was working as a carpenter and was earning Rs.25,000/- P.M. Due to the accident in question, he has become disabled physically and has also suffered great financial loss.

6. Respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh (driver-owner) as well

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top