Partly allowed

(O&M) the Oriental Ins.Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Suman Yadav & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2010FAO/1021/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal regarding liability but allowed the claimants' appeal to enhance compensation from Rs. 1,45,001/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-, reducing the personal deduction and awarding it with interest, apportioned between the claimants.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- with 6% interest; insurer liable for 50% share; drivers personal liability negated.

(O&M) the Oriental Ins.Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Suman… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

F.A.O.NO.1021 OF 1988 and F.A.O.No.1072 of 1988

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

F.A.O.NO. 1021 OF 1988 Date of decision:26^th August, 2010

¶5

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

¶6

.......Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Suman Yadav and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

F.A.O.No.1072 of 1988

¶11

Smt. Suman Yadav and another

¶12

.........Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Tirlok Chand and others

¶15

........Respondents

¶16

BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

¶17

Present: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶18

Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶19

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.

¶20

None for the remaining respondents.

¶21

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

¶22

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No

¶23

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

¶24

K.Kannan, J.(Oral)

¶25

1. The two appeals are at the instance of the insurer challenging liability and by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

¶26

F.A.O.NO.1021 OF 1988 and F.A.O.No.1072 of 1988

¶27

¶28

2. The deceased was a motor cyclist who had stopped at traffic signal. The accident is said to have been taken place when the car coming behind the motor cycle dashed against the motor cycle, threw the deceased from his vehicle, at that time a bus which was owned by Haryana Roadways ran over him. The Tribunal found the car owner, the insurer namely Oriental Insurance Company and the bus driver and the owner namely Haryana Roadways to be liable for the accident and apportioned the liability as 50:50.

¶29

3. Learned counsel contends that there was a statutory restriction of liability for a claim arising out of death to a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This contention was also taken before the Tribunal but the Tribunal has held that there had been a payment of extra premium for unlimited liabiity and 50% of the amount has been directed to be paid by the insurer only on such basis. Before me, now there is no new material evidence that there has been a restriction of liability only to Rs. 50,000/- as pleaded by the insurer. The Insurance Company was therefore, be liable for 50% of the amount that is determined as compensation. The appeal by the insurer therefore, is dismissed.

¶30

4. As far as the appeal for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the claimants were the wife and son and the deceased was a person aged 28 years. His earning was said to be Rs.2,000/- and the Tribunal provided for 50% deduction for personal expenses and took Rs. 1,000/- as

¶31

F.A.O.NO.1021 OF 1988 and F.A.O.No.1072 of 1988

¶32

¶33

contribution to the family. I would find that the deduction made to the extent of 50% is high and I would reduce it to 1/3^rd . I would take the contribution to the family to be Rs. 1,350/- and would adopt a multiplier of 18 which would mean an amount of Rs. 2,91,600/- I would add the conventional heads of claim to be Rs. 9,500/- for funeral expenses, loss to estate and loss of love and affection I would round it off to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The amount in excess of the amount already awarded shall become payable with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. This increased amount shall also be apportioned in the same proportion. Having regard to the fact that the accident was of the year 1986, no part of the amount need be retained in any deposit and the entire sum may be paid to the claimants.

¶34

5. The award has been made against drivers of the car and the bus to pay the amount as tort feasors. They may have been responsible for the accident but the vicarious liability casts it to owners of the vehicles to take the burden of such liability. This is by way of explanation that there shall be no personal liability of the respective drivers to satisfy any portion of the claims. The appeal by the Insurer is dismissed and the appeal by the claimants is partly allowed to provide for enhancement in the manner referred to above.

¶35

[K.KANNAN] JUDGE

¶36

26^th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik

(O&M) the Oriental Ins.Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Suman Yadav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) the Oriental Ins.Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Suman Yadav & 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

Amar Singh Vs State of Haryana

Avinash Chander Vs State of Punjab

(O&M) Oriental Insurance Company Vs Veena & Ors.

Mohit Babbar Vs State of Punjab

Suman Yadav & Anr. Vs Tirlok Chand & Ors.

(O&M) Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Saroj Rani & Ors.