Dismissed

N I Co. Ltd. v. Arit Mohan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2010FAO/2568/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed appeals and cross objections by the National Insurance Company Ltd and claimants. The High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's awards regarding death and injury compensation, clarifying that Section 163-A claims are maintainable if income is restricted to Rs. 10,000 per annum.

What did the court decide?

Appeals and cross objections dismissed with order of costs.

N I Co. Ltd. Vs Arit Mohan and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

t
59
1
NoO568 of 2004 1 52
J 4d
A

¶2

IN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No2568 of 2004 Date of 0 CC 0 National Insurance Company^Ltde 0 Appellante I C5 versus I 4 Z Arit Mohan and others 1 t 1 Present Mr RMSuri Advocate for the appeant a5 Ia Z FAO Nol569 of^{2004 and} Cross ObicctionN0056CII of2006 National Insurance CompanyLtd Appellant versus Babli and othcrs Rcspondents Present2 Mr RlVISuri Advocate for the appellante Mr Gaurav Sharma Advocate for thc claimants JOYTI RANI . uma2012.08.28 2016.03.28 15:55 15: 02 I attest to the accuracy and FAOScanned TrueCopy of OriginalNo140 of 2004 and integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

1 r 0 0 I 0

Z C I 08

7 Z

0 FAO No2568 of 2004 2 S1 4 4 Cross ObjectionNo7 Cll of2006

¶8

National Insurance CompanyLtd

Appcllant

versus

Sat

Pal Sharma and others

¶13

Present l Mr RlVlSuri Advocatc for^the Parmindcr SinghAdvocate for the respondcntNo1

¶14

KCPURI J

¶15

By this^common order I intend to disposeof FAO No568 of 2004 National lnsurance CompanyLtd vcrsus Arit Mohan^and others FAO Noe2569of 2004 antNational Insurance CompanyLtde versus Babli^and othcrs alongwith Cross ObjcctionNo6 Cll of²⁰⁰⁶ and FAO Nol40 of 2004 National lnsurancc CompanyLtd versus Sat Pal Sharma and others alongwith Cross ObjectionNo7 CIl of 2006 as thcse appealsand crossobjcctionsarisc out of^thesame award and incident 1hese appeaIshavc been directed by the appellant Insurance Companyagainstthe award datcd 11 112003 passedby Iearned Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal Bathinda for setting^aside the^same and the appellantbe absolvcd from its Iiability The facts^are being^takenfromFAO Nol568 of²⁰⁰⁴

¶16

Briefly^{statcdthecase} of the claimants is that^on 2062002

¶17

JOYTI RANI Rajualong. uma2012.08.28^with Aditya^Mohan son of Dcvindcr Mohan was going 2016.03.28 15:55 ln 15: 02 I attest to the accuracy and Scanned TrueCopy of Original integrity of this document Trax PHHC,ChandigarhJccp No PB136971 bcing^driven bv Sat Pal Sharma from

1 0 C I C5

Z CC

7 Z C

FAO No2568 of 2004

1 A

Bathinda to Gidderbaha side to deIiveryOxygcnGas cylindersto the customerSe At about 11 am when they reached ncar Markfed Gidderbaha on GI Road Truek No PAT 2424^camc from the opposite side beingdrivcn by Munshi Singh rcspondentNoel at fast e rashly^and ncgligently^Truck becamc out of controI and was struck against^the jeep^as a result of which occupantsof Trax jeepleCe Sat Pal and Raju receivcd injuriesaThcy^wcrc rcmovcd to Civil Hospital Gidderbaha from where thcy^were referrcd to Civil HospitalBathinda Raju^succumbedto thc injuriesHis post mortem examination was conducted in Civil Hospital^Bathinda Jeep^was badly damaged Occurrence was witnesscd by Harbans Singh Criminal case with FIR No 44 dated 2152002 was registercdin^{PoIiceStationGiddcrbaha}

¶27

Claimants Babli Ashwani and Sapnaare the widow and mlnor son and daughtcrofdeceased Raju According^to the claimants Raju^was about 25 He was with the aforcsaid Trax jeepbclongingto Mls D Mohan^and company^andwas getting^Rs30001 per^{monthfromthis} company Bcsidcs this he^was at time are earning^on holidays^and sparc Thcy thc Iegal of the deceascd They allcged^asum of Rse80001^was spent^for treatmcnt ofRaju^and Rsl0001or transportationofRaju

¶28

Notice of the claim pctition^was givcnto the respondents

¶29

RespondentDMohar0 Co was served for 1381002 No

¶30

one appearedon its bchalf Accordinglyit was proccedcdagainst^CX

¶31

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

parte. uma2012.08.28 15: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

1 C 0 C0 I C5 I r Z

er I 08

1P 7 Z tl

FAO N01568 of 2004

Ol 4 C 0

Nlunshi SinghrcspondentfiIed reply to the claim petition stating^thatTruck Noe PAT 2424 was not involvcd in the accident^on 2052002 Jecp^NoePB03E6971 might^havebecn involved in^thc accidcnt with some othcr vehicle Claim petition^hasbeen flled in connivance with Sat Pal Sharma and Mls D Mohan 82Co Driver of^the jeep^was not holdingvalid and effcctivc drivingliccncc Sat Pal Sharma and Mls D Mohan Co were not havingvalid registrationcertiOcate route permitand fitness certificate at the jcep He denied his Iiability^to pay^the According^tohim thc^amount of claimed is without any basi He admitted tlmt hc is^owner of the truck Other averments in thc claim petitionhave been dcnied by him

¶42

RespondentSat Pal filed replyof thc claim applicationHe admittcd thc time pIaccand datc of thc accident and the fact that criminal case with FlR No 44 dated 2152002 under Sections 279133814271304A of the Indian Penal Codc has becn registeredin Police Station Gidderbaha He further admitted that Raju had taken Iift In Trax JeepNo PB136971 being^{drivcnby himfromGiddcrbaha} to Malout He admittcd^thattruck No^PAl2424 owned by respondent Noal and JeepNoe PBJ30E6971 owned by Mlse D Mohan Si Coe^were involved in thc accident According^to him jcep was insured with National lnsurance Co and the amount claimed is highlycxaggeratcd However the answeringrcspondentadmittcd that accident ofTrax Jeep

¶43

and truck No PAT2424 had taken placc

¶44

JOYTI RANI . uma2012.08.28RespondentInsurance^Co fllcd rcply of^the claim petition 2016.03.28 15:55 15: 02 I attest to the accuracy and statingScanned TrueCopy of OriginalPHHC,Chandigarh^that the amount claimed is highlyarbitrary and CXCCSSIVC integrity of this document

m r 0 0 I 0 I Z

1 FAO Nol568 of 2004

¶52

5 5

¶53

¶54

Driver of the truck was not havingvalid drivingIiccnce Storyof the accident is fabricatede Jeepwasnot at fauit^and thc offendingvehiclc^lS truck No PAT 2424 It denied its Iiabilityto pay thc compensation Othcr averments in the claim applicationhavc bccn refuted

¶55

On^thebasis of^the pleadingsof thc partics following^issues

¶56

werc framedl

¶57

1Whether claimant rcceivcd thc injuriesin thc accident

¶58

which took placeout of thc^use of motor vehicle ie Truck N0PAT24242 OPA

¶59

2 To what amount of the cIaimant is cntitled to 2 ifso from^whom 20PA

¶60

3 Whether respondcntNol was not posscssinga valid and cffcctivc driving^Iiccncconthe dayof accidcnt2OPR

¶61

4 Relicf

¶62

OriginalIy

¶63

claim petitionwas filed under Sections 166 and

¶64

140 ofthc Motor Vchicles Act Thereafter the claimants got it amended to^one under Section 1631 of Motor Vehiclcs Act

¶65

On the basis of the applicationof the claimants issuc Noel^was

¶66

amendcd vide order datcd 10112003 Now issuc Nol rcads^as underl

¶67

Whcther the claimant rcceived the injurics in the accident which took placeout of the^usc of motor vehicles leCe Truck NoPAl2424 and Trax JcepNo PB41346971 7 OPA

¶68

To prove Iheir^casc claimants examined AW1 HC Amar

¶69

Singh^AW2 Dr SanjayGarg AW3 Dincsh Gupta and claimant

¶70

as AW4 Documents ofthe claimants^are Exhibits A

¶71

the cvidcnce of the claimants rcspondenlMunshi

¶72

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55

¶73

andA8. uma 2012.08.28 15: 02 Scanned True Copy of OriginalPHHC,ChandigarhAainst

¶74

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

m 1r 0 0 I 0 I Z

I 08 C W2 Z C

e FAO No2568 of 2004

Singhappearedas RW1 Thc respondentcxamincd RW2 Buta singh Additional Ahlmad of the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Gidderbaha Exhibit ll is copy of the Insurancc policy Howevcr the respondentIed^no other evidence

¶82

Thc parties^havcIcd thcir respective^evidence on^the

¶83

aforesaid issucsa

¶84

The Tribunal after appraisalof thc cvidence and after hearing^{Iearnedcounsel} for thc parties awarded Rs241341 as to the claimant againstthc respondents alongwith interest at the rate of 9 per^annum from thc date of Olingthc petition tiII its realization which^resulted Ill filingof FAO Noe2568of 2004

¶85

The Tribunal fu rther awarded awarded Rsl590081 as to thc claimant against^the respondcnts alongwith interest at the rate of 9Io per^annum from thc^date of Olingthe petition tiII its realization which resulted I tl fllingof FAO No740 of 2004

¶86

Thc Tribunal further awardcd Rse4340001 as compensationto^the claimant against^the respondcntsalongwith interest at the rate of 9 pcr annum from the datc of filingthe petition till its rcaIization which rcsulted Ill fllingof FAO Nol569 of²⁰⁰⁴

¶87

Feeling^dissatisfied with thc aforcsaid award appellant National Insurance CompanyLtd has filed the instant appeals

¶88

1 havc heard the learncd counsel for the partiesand have

¶89

gonethorough^{the records} of^thecase

¶90

JOYTI RANI Learned counscl for the Insurance Companyhashas submitted 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶91

. uma 2012.08.28 Learned counscl for the Insurance Companyhashas submitted 15: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original that PHHC,ChandigarhSat Pal claimant has mcntioncd his income^as RsA5001 pcr month

0 C I 0 I

r I 08

em Z

l FAO Nol568 of²⁰⁰⁴

¶98

in the claim petition Sat Pal whilc appcaring^as AW4 has aiso stated that his income^was RsA5001oer month^as d river but has statcd that his annual inctmc be trcatcd^as RsAO00013er year

¶99

Arit Mohan claimant has pleadedthat hc was drawing salary^ofRs80001 per^month Arit Mohan whilc appearingas his own witness has also stated thal hc has income of Rs80001 per month as SaIes Managcr lt IS coⁿ tcndcd that the claim petitionhas bcen acceptedunder^Section16361 ofthe Act Thc person^{whose incomewas} more than RsAO0001oer month cannot maintain a pctitionundcr Section163A ofthe Act

¶100

To support this contention Iearned counsel lor the Insurance Company^has relied upon authorio7Gurmeet Singh^VS Chandiarh TrunsportUndertakin and others 2008 ACJ 2303 3uniab and Harvanu Hih Courtl Orientallnsurance Companv Ltd verSUS Bimla Devi Rani and others 2008 ACJ pagc limachal Pradesh Hih Courtl Ram Sarup^VSe Lakhpat Sinh and others 2009 PLR National Insurance Companv IICYSUS Annie Varkev and others 2007ACJ 1827 Puniab and Harvunu Hih Court Huseena Sulthana and others^vs National Thermtil Power CoroorutionLtll and^another2007 ACJ 1832 Olndhra Prudesh Hih CourO and Chandru Sin2h and another^vs Gavatriand another 2007ACJ 2355

¶101

ln rcply to thc above noted submissions learncd counsel

¶102

for the claimants has submittcd that the Division Bcnch of Punjaband

¶103

JOYTI RANI HaryanaHigh. uma2012.08.28^Courtin authorityOriental Insuronce Co Ltd llSeSmt 2016.03.28 15:55 15: 02 I attest to the accuracy and SaroiScanned TrueCopy of OriginalPHHC,Chandigarhand others 07 Oll RCRUl M2 has held that wherc the integrity of this document

¶104

¶105

¶106

0 0 I t5 I e Z a C I 08 00 4 sv Z ll

¶107

11 FAO N01568 of²⁰⁰⁴

¶108

8 l

¶109

¶110

incomcof thc deceascd^was set up for^morc than RsAO0001oer annum but if his income is found^to bc below RsAO0001 the claim petition under Section 163A of thc Act is maintainable

¶111

ln the followingauthorities thc various High Court have held that the claimant^can rcstrict the income to Rs000011er annum in claim pctitionunlcr Scction 1631 of Motor Vehicles Act

¶112

2I1VoreshKumnr vs Vikas Ratlti und others 2009111AICJ paoe6Puninb and Hurvunal BRukmuni Devi^vs New^India Assurance^{CompanvLimited} and another 2009ACJ 2202 09elliiHih Courtl In authorityRavinderand another vse Subhash Chand and^ors 200621RCR Civill p 525 uniab and Harvana this Court allowed^theamendmcnt to convcrt thc petitionundcr Section 166 to 163A of the Act by rcstrictingthc incomc of^RsAO0001 per annume

¶113

1 havc givcn^my thoughtfulconsideration to the submissions

¶114

madeby both the Iearncd counsel for tlIc particsand havc gone through the records of the^casee

¶115

So far as thc FAO NoJ40 of 2004 is conccrned the

¶116

tncome of^deceasedhas bccn plcadcd^lIS Rs30001 pcr month ieee

¶117

pcr year So thc above said controvcrsy is not there in^that JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and of 2004 integrity of this document

¶118

Rs60001. uma pcr year 2012.08.28 15: 02 FAONoe740Scanned TrueCopy of Original of 2004 PHHC,Chandigarh

4 FAO No568 of 2004

1 r 0 0 I C5 I r Z

r 1 08 cn m3 Z

So far as thc remainingtlvo VAOs are concerned the claimants^havc rcstrictcd their^incomet0 thc cxtcnt of RsAO0001 per yCare All thc above mentioncd authoritics rclicd upon by thc Iearned counsel for thc appcllantshavc bcen handcd down by SinglcBench of this Court and other lIigh Courts ln authoritics rclied upon by the Icarncd counsel for the respondentsit has bccn held by this Court and Singlc^Bcnch of various oher High Courts that claim pctkIn under Section163A of the Act S maintainablc if thc income is found to be Iessthan RsAO0001epcr^anlum or the claimant rcstricted his income to thc extent of RsAO0001 per annum The Division Bench ofPunjab^and Haryana^HighCourt whidh would prcvailingupon all other Single Bcnch in authoritics OrieIl lsuranceo Lt vs Smt Sam1^anfl othe case 651 held that where^the incomc by^the claimant is plcadcd^more than RsA00001oer annum but the^samc was found to be RsAO0001 by thc Tribunal in that casc the claim petition undcr Section 163A of the^Act is maintainable

¶126

So in vicw of the a6ovc discussion l^haveno hcsitation in

¶127

holdingthat^a thc thrcc claim itions^are maintainablce

¶128

Learncd^counsel for^the lnsurance Company^has further submittcd^that thc Tribunal has not givcn^a findingthat driver of the truck in question^was negligcnt^SO on that account the lnsurancc Company^isnotIiable

¶129

I have carcfullyconskcrcd thc said submission but do not

¶130

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶131

find. uma2012.08.28any force in that submissione 15: 02 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

1 0 C I C5 Z r I a5

7 Z

FAO No2568 of 2004

aVl

Thoughinitially^thc claim petitionswcre filed under Section 166 of thc Act but the^samc wcrc Iater^on amcndcd to be under 614 PeJ4404

¶139

Scction 163A ofthc Act 7 uls¹⁶³ A^C1ItwAc 4 Learned counscl for the Company^has

¶140

further submitted thal issue undcr Section 163A of^the Act was framed on 101120030 No further opportunity was given to thc on appellant^to lead cvidence and thc appellanthas bccn prejudiced that account

¶141

I have carcfullyconsidcrcd thc said submission but do not

¶142

find any force in t submisse

¶143

In case the appellant^was interested to Icad any evidcnce aftcr framing^lSSUC undcr^Sections 1631 of thc Act in that case they would have rcquestedto thc Tribunal but no such requcstwas madee So Ill thcsc circumstanccs the abovc said contcntion cannot be accepted

¶144

Learned counsel for thc Company^has submitted that amount of compensationgrantedin respcctof death of Raju^IS OIl higher side Thc dcpcndcncyshould havc bcen takcn on lower sidee

¶145

On thc other hand crosslbjcctions havc bcen filcd for cnhanccment of compcnsationamount by thc respondcntsclaimants

¶146

1 havc carcfuv considcrcd the^{saidsubmission} but do not

¶147

find any force in thc contentions raised b3 both the Icarned counsel for

¶148

JOYTI RANI the partics. uma2012.08.28 The claim petitionhas been decided undcr Section 163A of 2016.03.28 15:55 15: 02 I attest to the accuracy and the ActScanned TrueCopy of OriginalPHHC,Chandigarhand thc amount has to bc oranted I tl accordance with the integrity of this document

¶149

¶150

1 Lr 0 0 I C5 I Z r C 08 f11 em Z

¶151

FAO Nol568of 2004

¶152

¶153

Second Schcdule of Section 161 of^thc Act lhc amount has bcen awarded strictly accordingto that Schedule So no ground for interference in the impugncdaward passcdby^thc Tribunalis made

¶154

oute

¶155

Learncd counsel for the Insurancc Companyhas furthcr submitted that the total amount awarded in respcctof^cxpcnseson medicincs^can be up to Rs1 58001 Thc Tribunal should not^have grantcd^amount more than Rs50001 and as such the award is Iiable to be reduced to that cxtcnt

¶156

I have carcfuIlygonc throughthe bare provisionsof the

¶157

Acte

¶158

lt is clcar from Clause 4 iil^{ofthcSccondSchcduled} of Section 1631 of thc Act expenscs on medicinc^should be actual cxpcnscsincurredsupportcdby the billslvouchers^{butCuMcxtcndedas} L one timc payment^to thc extent of Rs150001 So thc intention of the Legislation^isthat thc amount of payment should not be^more than Rs150001 at^onc occaSIOOe Thcre^is nothing^on thc flle that^more than Rsel50001has bcen claimcd at^onc occaslone