Dismissed

Vipin Kumar v. Jagdish and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2009FAO/4141/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court held that the deduction of Rs. 1.00 lac, already received by the claimants from the Sub Divisional Magistrate towards compensation for the deceased, was legally required and the Tribunal's decision stands.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award with the deduction of Rs. 1.00 lac.

Vipin Kumar Vs Jagdish and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

F.A.O. No. 1982 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

F.A.O. No. 1982 of 2009

¶4

Date of decision: 14-12-2009

¶5

Smt. Saroj and Others

.........Appellants

Surta and Others

.........Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

¶11

Present: Shri V.S.Punia, Advocate, for the appellants

¶12

Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the respondent insurance company.

¶13

HARBANS LAL, J.

¶14

This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.5.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal whereby she awarded an amount of Rs.2,94,000/- in favour of the claimants on account of death of Shamsher in a road accident alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

¶15

The brief facts are that Suresh Kumar was employed on truck bearing registration No. HR 46/5647 as conductor, whereas his brother Shamsher was employed as driver on this truck. On 3.11.2006, he alongwith his brother started from Barwala to Narwana. The truck was loaded with Bajra and was being driven by Shamsher son of Neki Ram. Around 10 p.m. truck bearing registration No. HR 56/0427 was found parked in the middle of the road without showing an indication or plying dipper. On seeing the truck when his brother tried to overtake it, then immediately from the other side another truck came with full beam lights, as a result of which, aforesaid truck being driven by his brother turned turtle and fell into ditches adajacent

¶16

F.A.O. No. 1982 of 2009 2

¶17

to the road. Shamsher died at the spot. The accident took place due to rash and negligent parking of the above mentioned truck.

¶18

In their joint written statements, the respondents Surta as well as Sajjan Singh have inter-alia pleaded that no accident took place with the alleged truck and false case has been got registered against Surta in collusion with the police only to grab the compensation amount from the answering respondent. The respondent insurance company in its written statement also denied the accident. It has been alleged that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. HR-46-5647, who cut the truck suddenly on the left side and could not control the same, due to which the truck slipped in the ditches by the road side.

¶19

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

¶20

Whether the accident dated 3.11.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. near Titram Chowk, P.S. Sadar, Kaithal resulting into death of Shamsher Singh took place due to negligence of driver/respondent No.1 of offending truck No. HR-560427?OPP

¶21

If, issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPR

¶22

Whether the claim petition is maintainable as alleged?OPR

¶23

Relief

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides

¶25

perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

¶26

The short point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in deducting Rs.1.00 lac from the total amount of compensation on the ground that the legal

¶27

F.A.O. No. 1982 of 2009 3

¶28

representatives of the deceased Shamsher have received a sum of Rs.1.00 lacs from the fund of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narwana, whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the appellants on account of the death of Shamsher and had no concern with the amount given by above mentioned Sub Divisional Magistrate. To overcome this submission, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the amount of Rs.1.00 lac granted by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narwana towards compensation on account of the death of Shamsher deceased has rightly been deducted by the learned Tribunal. This contention merits acceptance. There is no gain-saying the fact that this amount of Rs.1.00 lac was awarded on account of compensation towards the death of Shamsher deceased by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narwana. That being so, that amount was required to be deducted by the learned Tribunal from the total amount of compensation. Sequelly, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal call for no interference.

¶29

No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel.

¶30

As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶31

(HARBANS LAL) JUDGE

¶32

December 14, 2009 RSK

¶33

NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No

Vipin Kumar v. Jagdish and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar v. Jagdish and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birender Singh Vs Diwan Singh and Anr.

Hari Singh Vs Pala Ram and Ors.

Sachin Vs Ajaib Singh and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pyara Chand and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs Gurbachan Singh and Ors.

Mahender Singh and Anr. Vs Jagdish and Ors.