The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that the quantum of compensation did not require reduction and upheld the finding of negligence established in a prior judgment.
The revision petition is dismissed, with the Tribunal award remaining unchanged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.2424 OF 1998 DATE OF DECISION : 30th OCTOBER, 2012
New India Ass. Co. Ltd. & another
…. Petitioners
Versus
Prem Lata
…. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, insurer and owner-cum-driver of the car have assailed award dated 22.01.1998 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (in short, the Tribunal) in application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by respondent claimant Prem Lata claiming compensation for injuries suffered by her in motor vehicular accident, thereby awarding compensation of Rs.5000/- to respondent claimant.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file whereas counsel for respondent prayed for adjournment as he missed the case in the cause list.
By the same award, the Tribunal decided three claim petitions. Out of claim petition filed by Harjinder Singh Bajaj arising out of the same
CR NO.2424 OF 1998
- 2 -
accident, two appeals i.e. FAO No.1080 of 1998 by claimant Harjinder Singh Bajaj and FAO No.905 of 1990 by insurer and owner-cum-driver of the car were preferred. Both the said appeals have been disposed of by this Court vide common judgment dated 28.02.2011 whereby appeal of Harjinder Singh Bajaj for enhancement of compensation was dismissed whereas appeal of insurer and owner-cum-driver of the car has been partly allowed thereby reducing the amount of compensation. However, finding of negligence of the car driver has been upheld in the said appeals. So the said finding of negligence has to be upheld in this revision petition also.
As regards quantum of compensation in this case, the compensation awarded to respondent-claimant in the instant case is meager amount of 5,000/- only. The respondent-claimant had suffered four injuries in the accident. She also remained admitted in hospital for six days. Keeping in view the same, the amount of 5,000/- awarded as compensation to the respondent claimant does not require any reduction.
Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed being meritless.
30th October, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reduction in the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the finding of negligence of the car driver should be upheld in this revision petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
New India Ass. Co. Ltd.
Prem Lata
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
