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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1927

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN, J.
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Kamlesh Kaur And Others - Respondent 
FAO-1208-2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

CM-4822-CII-2024

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-7249-CII-2024

3. This is an application for passing an appropriate order in the application for stay of execution of the award dated 15.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

4. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate has appeared and has filed his memorandum of appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. The same is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that instead of hearing the application for stay the main case itself be heard. With the consent of counsel for the parties, main case is taken on Board today itself.

FAO-1208-2024

6. Present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 15.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

7. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that on 05.12.2021 Gurmeet Singh along with wife, namely, Kamlesh Kaur, who is the claimant-respondent No.1, after meeting their relatives at Kharar were going to their house at Village Kathgarh, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-32-U-5232. Gurmeet Singh (since deceased) was stated to have been riding the motorcycle at a slow speed and on the correct side of the road. Ajit Singh (brother of Gurmeet Singh) was coming behind them on his own motorcycle and at about 4:30 pm when they reached near Village Chakla on Chandigarh-Ropar Highway, a car bearing registration No.HR-01-AD-7032 came from behind which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and after overtaking Ajit Singh struck the motorcycle of Gurmeet Singh. Due to the accident Gurmeet Singh fell on the sewerage manhole and received head injuries as well as other injuries. The pillion rider, who was the wife of the deceased, was also injured in the said accident. The driver of the car did not stop and he sped away. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Rupnagar from where Gurmeet Singh (since deceased) was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries on the next date i.e. 06.12.2021. On the basis of the statement of Ajit Singh, FIR No.92 dated 06.12.2021 under Section 279, 304-A, 427, 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar. Claim petition was preferred by the claimants. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleading of the parties, awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No.

Heads

Compensation Awarded

1

Monthly income

Rs.71,013/-

2

Annual income

[Rs.71,013/- x 12] = Rs.8,52,156/-

3

Income Tax

[Rs.8,52,156/- - Rs.80,000/-] = Rs. 7,72,156/-

4

Future prospects 15%

[Rs.7,72,156/- + Rs. 1,15,823/-] = Rs. 8,87,979/-

5

Deduction 174th

[Rs.8,87,979/- - Rs.2,21,995/-] = Rs.6,65,984/-

6

Multiplier of 11

[Rs.6,65,984/- x 11] = Rs.73,25,824/-

7

Funeral expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

8

Loss of estate

Rs. 15,000/-

9

Loss of consortium

Rs.40,000/-

10

Total Compensation

Rs.73,95,824/-

Interest

7% per annum

8. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the present was a hit and run case and that the number of the vehicle was introduced in collusion with the driver and owner of the vehicle involved. It is further the contention that the FIR was registered on the next day and that in the criminal case the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents No.1 to 4 would contend that in the present case the wife of the deceased, namely, Kamlesh Kaur had stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She was an eyewitness to the said accident and after being subjected to lengthy cross-examination nothing could be elicited.

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