IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

215

FAO-3818-2018 (O&M)

Decided on : 21.04.2022

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited

. . . Appellant(s)

Versus

Ankush and others

. . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

PRESENT: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate

for the appellant-Insurance Company.

None for the respondents.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

Company against the award dated 20.03.2018, passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal'), in a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, wherein, the following compensation in the sum of Rs.

3,47,000/-, was awarded to claimant/respondent No.1, for the injuries

suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on

07.06.2016:-

Sr. No. Head

Amount

1.

Loss of Income

Rs.3000/- p.m.

2.

Annual Income

Rs.3000 x 12 = Rs. 36,000/-

3.

Annual loss of future earning

Rs.18,000/-

(50% of Rs.36,000/-)

4.

Multiplier applicable with reference

18

5.

Total loss of future earning

Rs.3,24,000/-

6.

Medical expenses

(i) Medicines

Rs.15,000/-

7.

Pain & suffering

Rs.5,000/-

8.

Loss of amenity for 50% functional disability

Rs.3,24,2000/-

Total:

Rs.3,47,000/-

JAWALA RAM

2022.04.29 18:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-3818-2018 (O&M)

- 2 -

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits

that tractor bearing registration No. HR-02-X-7506, was not involved in the

accident in question and a false DDR involving the tractor in question had

been recorded after 20 days, which went a long way to show that the

claimant/respondent No.1 had colluded with the police. It has been

submitted that the accident in question had taken place in a 'private place',

while the tractor was being used for cultivating agricultural land. It was

submitted that in the circumstances, the claim petition qua the appellant-

Insurance Company was not maintainable, as envisaged under Section 147

of the Motor Vehicles Act, more so, since agricultural land, could not be

termed as a 'public place'. He submitted that it was the admitted case that

the injured-claimant was sitting on the tractor, which was being driven by

respondent No.2 – Balwinder Singh, and while accelerating the said tractor,

the injured-claimant slipped from the tractor and sustained injuries. It was

submitted that the injured-claimant was an unauthorized occupant of the

tractor and thus the company was not liable to indemnify the injured-

claimant. Learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded

to the injured-claimant was on the higher side and thus, required to be

reduced.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company and perused the relevant material on record.

It is a matter of record that claimant-respondent No.1 sustained

injuries including permanent disability in respect of his leg to the extent of

80% in the accident in question. The injuries sustained and the permanent

disability find due corroboration from the medical evidence on record.

Further more, while stepping into the witness-box as PW-1, the

JAWALA RAM

2022.04.29 18:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-3818-2018 (O&M)

- 3 -

claimant/injured gave a vivid account qua the manner in which the accident

in question occurred. Still further, no doubt the injured-claimant was not

the driver of the tractor and was not engaged by the owner of the tractor in

question, however, admittedly he is a close family member of the driver and

owner of the tractor. It is not even disputed that the family of the injured-

claimant is into agriculture and as such his presence at the relevant time,

while they were cultivating their fields comes across as most natural.

Still further, the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Compa