Partly allowed

Mandeep Kaur & Anr. v. Kashmir Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2010FAO/236/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two conflicting appeals concerning a motor accident, the Court transposed the insurer to the respondent side, quashed the insurer's appeal, enhanced compensation for the claimants against the insured owner, and dismissed the insured's appeal against the quantum.

What did the court decide?

Insurance appeal dismissed; claimants' appeal partially allowed with enhanced compensation against the insured; insurer transposed to respondent.

Mandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs Kashmir Singh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

FAO No.661 of 1993

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.661 of 1993 Date of Decision. 06.08.2010

¶5

Shri Kashmir Singh Dhillon S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, Resident of village and post office Jhabal District Amritsar (Driver of the Truck No.HYF6497) ......Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Mandeep Kaur widow of Shri Kamal Deep Singh and others

¶8

......Respondents

¶9

Present: None for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

¶11

None for the respondents.

¶12

2. FAO No.236 of 1993

¶13

Smt. Mandeep Kaur widow of Shri Kamal Deep Singh and another

¶14

......Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Shri Kashmir Singh Dhillon S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, Resident of village and post office Jhabal District Amritsar (Driver of the Truck No.HYF6497) and others .....Respondents

¶17

Present: None for the appellant.

¶18

Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

¶19

None for the respondents.

¶20

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶21

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶22

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶23

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶24

-.-

¶25

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶26

-2-

¶27

FAO No.661 of 1993

¶28

Both the appeals are taken up together as arising out of same cause of action. The appeal in FAO No.661 of 1993 is filed by the insurer along with the insured questioning the compensation and negligence of the driver. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Vs. N.K. Raju and another 2000 (4) SCC 130 that such an appeal is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that in such cases the insurer shall be transposed as a respondent and the appeal could be permitted to be continued by the insured only. Accordingly, it is ordered that the insurance company is transposed as respondent No.6 and the appeal shall be taken as having been filed only by the insured. The registry is directed to carry out the amendment to the memo of parties after transposition in the manner referred to above.

¶29

The claim of the insurance company will have been examined along with the plea for enhancement of the compensation sought at the instance of the claimants. The deceased was a driver of the car and the accident arose by a collision of the car with the truck. The insurer in appeal, who has been later transposed, is the insurer for the truck. The Tribunal has found the truck driver to be wholly responsible for the accident. While determining the compensation, without addressing the conventional heads, it has merely held the insurer to be liable for Rs.1,50,000/-, which incidentally is also the statutory limit provided by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

¶30

It was placed in evidence that the deceased was a Senior Coach at NIS and was drawing a salary of Rs.3500/- per month. The

¶31

-3-

¶32

FAO No.661 of 1993

¶33

claimants were widows, son and parents. If a 1/3^rd deduction were to be made, the monthly dependence of the family should have been Rs.2250/- and the yearly dependence must have been taken as Rs.27,000/-. The appropriate multiplier would have been 13 and the compensation payable under this head should have been Rs.3,51,000/-. For the conventional heads of claims for loss of consortium, love and affection for the child, loss to estate and funeral expenses, an additional sum of Rs.14,000/- could be provided to take the total amount payable as Rs.3,65,000/-. The amount in excess of Rs.1,50,000/- which is already awarded, shall be borne only by the insured/owner of the truck that was responsible for the accident. The appeal filed by the claimants in FAO No.236 of 1993 is allowed but the right of recovery shall be only against the insured and not against the insurer.

¶34

The appeal filed by the insured in FAO No.661 of 1993 is dismissed.

¶35

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶36

August 06, 2010 Pankaj*

Mandeep Kaur & Anr. v. Kashmir Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Kaur & Anr. v. Kashmir Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Vs Mohinder Singh etc.

(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Santra Devi and Others

(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ram Kumar & Others

Kulwant Singh Vs Karam Singh & Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors.

Nirmal Kaur and Ors. Vs Jaspal Singh and Ors.