FAO No.3603 of 2013 (O&M) and connected appeal

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.3603 of 2013 (O&M)

and Cross Objection No.31-CII of 2014

Date of Decision: 19.07.2018

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

... Appellant

Versus

Payal Bhola and others

... Respondents

FAO No.3797 of 2013 (O&M)

Ravinder Singh

...Appellant

Versus

Payal Bhola and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

Present:- Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate,

for the appellant in FAO No.3797 of 2013 and

for respondent No.4 in FAO No.3603 of 2013.

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate

for the appellant in FAO No.3603 of 2013 and

for respondent No.5 in FAO No.3797 of 2013.

Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for

for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in FAO No.3797 of 2013 and

FAO No.3603 of 2013 and for cross objectors.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

This order shall dispose of FAO Nos.3603 of 2013 and

Cross Objection No.31-CII of 2014 titled as National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Payal Bhola and others and FAO No. 3797 of

2013 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. Payal Bhola and others as these

matters arise out of the award dated 26.03.2013 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana.

Vandana

2018.07.24 11:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

FAO No.3603 of 2013 (O&M) and connected appeal

2

FAO No.3603 of 2013 has been preferred by the

National Insurance Company Limited and cross objections have

been filed by the claimants. The only question raised in these two

matters is with regard to quantum of compensation.

Briefly, it may be noticed that the claim petition was

filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the widow and

two minor children of deceased Vishal Bhola who is stated to have

died in a motor vehicle accident on 12.04.2011. It was averred in

the claim petition that Vishal Bhola (since deceased) and who was

working with Sandhu Automobiles had gone to Stan Auto,

G.T.Road, Ludhiana on 12.04.2011 to explore better job prospects.

It was stated that while he was standing within the premises of Stan

Auto and waiting to meet certain officials, a car bearing

registration No.PB-10-DA-Temp-6887 being driven by Ravinder

Singh came at a high speed and struck against Vishal Bhola and

who succumbed to the injuries on the same very day. Case made

out was that Vishal Bhola died on account of rash and negligent

driving by Ravinder Singh i.e. driver of the offending vehicle and

a compensation amount of Rs.30 lakhs was claimed.

Claim petition was contested by Ravinder Singh

(respondent No.1) denying the accident itself even though

admitting that he was serving as a Service Supervisor in Stan Auto,

Ludhiana. Respondent No.2 in the claim petition, namely, Parveen

Sharma i.e. owner of the vehicle did not put in appearance and was

proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company i.e. respondent

No.3 also filed a written statement raising the objections that the

Vandana

2018.07.24 11:10

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

FAO No.3603 of 2013 (O&M) and connected appeal

3

car in question was not having valid registration certificate and

even the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of

accident and as such the Company was not liable to pay any

compensation.

From the pleadings on parties, the following issues

were framed by the Tribunal:-

1. “Whether deceased Vishal Bhola had died in a

road side accident caused by respondent No.1

with rash and negligent driving PB 10DA T 6887?

OPP.

2. Whether claimants are entitled for recovery of

claim amount, if so, to what extent and from

whom? OPP.

3. Whether petition is not properly verified? OPP

4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties? OPP.

5. Whether respondent No.1 was not possessing

valid driving license, as such respondent No.3 is

not liable? OPR

6. R