Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Paramjeet Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sudeepti Sharma, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 01.02.2019 passed in the claim petition bearing No. 61 of 24.11.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 55,29,500/- and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that Kuldip Singh (son of the claimants) was 28 years old at the time of his death and was getting salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. On 02.09.2015 Kuldip Singh (since deceased) was returning to village Tehnga from village Phillaur on motorcycle bearing registration no. PB-08-DC-2071 driven by his friend Gurdeep Singh. At about 10:00 pm, when they reached near village Garha, a truck was coming from the opposite side. The said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent no.1 Gurdeep Singh was driving the motorcycle also at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing the truck, he could not control the mot
The principle of composite negligence allows claimants to recover full compensation from any joint tortfeasor, irrespective of the individual negligence of each party involved in the accident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper attribution of contributory negligence and the computation of just and reasonable compensation.
The judgment establishes the principle of joint and several liability in cases of composite negligence, and clarifies the inapplicability of compassionate appointment benefits in compensation claims.
The judgment established the principles of negligence, contributory negligence, and composite negligence in motor accident cases, and applied relevant legal provisions and precedents to determine com....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence in motor accident claims, emphasizing the right of legal representatives t....
The court ruled that contributory negligence cannot be inferred solely from a site plan when eyewitness testimony indicates no fault, and clarified compensation calculations regarding deductions and ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
