Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Billu Ram & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2012FAO/3026/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment that the deceased, a 17-year-old student, had a potential income of Rs.3000/- per month based on evidence of tailoring work, noting the lack of contrary evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal's order upholding the award is affirmed to the extent of determining the deceased's earning capacity.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Billu Ram & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.3026 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.3026 of 2010 (in MACT case No.20109) Date of decision: 19.4.2012

¶5

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

...Appellant

Versus

Billu Ram and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant

¶12

Mr.Ajit Atri, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶13

Mr.Sushil Kumar, Advocate for Mr.LR Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal assailing the Award dated 3.3.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Karnal, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby, the claim petition of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was allowed and the appellant being the insurer of the offending vehicle was held liable to indemnify the award.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no cogent proof of income of the deceased. The deceased, a student aged 17 years was coming from Karnal after appearing in the examination. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was capable of earning at least Rs.3000/- per month, without there being any evidence on record. He

¶18

FAO No.3026 of 2010 2

¶19

further contends that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is against the 2^nd Schedule provided under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimantsrespondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the deceased was working with PW3 Joginder Kumar and had been doing tailoring work after school hours.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶22

Admittedly, Sunil Kumar died in a road accident on 25.2.2008. From the cross-examination of PW2- Billu Ram, father of the deceased and PW3 Joginder Kumar, the owner of the tailoring shop, with whom the deceased used to work, lends credence to the suggestion that the deceased had been doing job of tailoring at the shop owned by PW3- Joginder Kumar. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was capable of earning of Rs.3000/- per month. Though it is not in line with the structured formula, but in the instant case, on scanning the entire evidence particularly the cross-examination of PW2-Billu Ram and PW3- Joginder Kumar, it emerges that no suggestion was put to PW3- Joginder Kumar that the deceased was not earning Rs.3000 /- per month. Therefore, the income assessed by the learned Tribunal can safely be accepted. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being bereft of any

¶24

merit.

¶25

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶26

19.4.2012 gsv

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Billu Ram & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Billu Ram & 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

Ismail Vs State of Haryana

K.C. Beniwal Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Vedwati Vs Dalip Kumar and Ors.

Prabhjot Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rani & Ors. Vs Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala & Ors.