FAO-4355-2015 (O&M)& FAO-5175-2016 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1.

FAO No.4355 of 2015

Reserved on: 13.12.2022

Pronounced on:21.12.2022

United India Insurance Company ltd.

.........Appellant

vs.

Jagvinder Singh and others

........Respondents

2.

FAO No.5175 of 2016

Jagvinder Singh

.........Appellant

vs.

Devi Lal and others

.......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:- Mr. K.S. Siwach, Advocate for

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant in FAO-5175-2016 and respondent No.1 in

FAO- 4355-2015

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for

the appellant- Insurance Company

in FAO-4355-2015

Ms. Lipika, Advocate for Mr. R.S, Mamli,

Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3

*******

HARKESH MANUJA, J

CM-17638-CII-2016 in FAO-5175-2016:-

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 298 days

in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is

supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown that due to

paucity of funds and medical condition, applicant could not file the present

appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, the same is allowed

and delay of 298 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

SANJAY GUPTA

2022.12.22 11:08

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

FAO-4355-2015 (O&M)& FAO-5175-2016 (O&M)

2

Main Case:

This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals i.e.FAO

No.4355 of 2015& FAO No.5175 of 2016 filed at the instance of claimant-

injured and Insurance Company respectively, impugning the award dated

05.05.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad

(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

For convenience, facts are taken from FAO No. 4355 of 2015.

Respondent

No.1-

injured

(hereinafter

referred

to

as

“respondent No.1”), on account of having sustained injuries in a road

accident on 03.12.12, filed a claim petition alleging rash and negligent

driving on part of respondent No.2while driving the offending vehicle i.e.

Tractor No. HR-08-F-7762. The learned Tribunal vide impugned award

dated 05.05.2015 granted Rs.9,17,840/- with interest @7.5% per annum as

compensation in the following manner:-

Sr.No. Particulars

Amount (Rs.)

Pecuniary damages

1.

Loss of income

Rs.32,400/-

2.

Transport to hospital, attendant charges, diet

and nutrition.

Rs.20,000/-

3.

Medical expenses

Rs.83,940/-

Non- pecuniary damages

4.

Pain and sufferings (Three operations and

three fractures)

Rs.52,500/-

5.

Loss of income due to functional disability of

76% in loss of earning power (5400 X 12 X

0.75 X 15)

Rs.7,29,000/-

Total Compensation

Rs.9,17,840/-

It is the aforesaid award, which has been impugned by way of

present appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company

(hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) contends that the alleged offending

vehicle was falsely involved in the accident as a result of collusion between

the respondents herein, hence, appellant cannot be held liable to indemnify

SANJAY GUPTA

2022.12.22 11:08

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

FAO-4355-2015 (O&M)& FAO-5175-2016 (O&M)

3

the owner. He further contends that otherwise also, since the said accident

took place as a result of head-on-collision, therefore, it was a case of

contributory negligence and amount of compensation ought to have been

reduced to the extent of 50%.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.1,apart from denying the factum of collusion and non-involvement of

offending vehicle, contends that learned Tribunal has rightly held that

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 and

mere fact that there was a head-on-collision was not enough to establish

any negligence on part of respondent No.1. He further contends that

compensation awarded by learned Tribunal was n