Dismissed

Latif v. Afsana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jan 2012FAO/357/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral order dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court found no evidence that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger traveling for wedding purposes, holding the Tribunal was correct in imposing liability on the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; the appeal was dismissed.

Latif Vs Afsana and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.357 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.357 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:3.1.2012

Latif

....Appellant

Versus

Smt.Afsana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant

¶12

Ms.Indu Bala, Advocate for Mr.ND Achint, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 7

¶13

None for respondent No.8.

¶14

Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.9.

¶15

¶16

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶17

Application for condonation of delay.

¶18

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶19

Application stands disposed of.

¶20

FAO No.357 of 2010

¶21

The appellant Latif, the owner of the offending vehicle, has filed the present appeal, assailing the impugned award dated 6.10.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby the claim petition was accepted and he was held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the vehicle

¶23

FAO No.357 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶24

involved in the accident was a goods carrying vehicle, in which the deceased was travelling. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle with the goods, which were given as gifts in the marriage. He has further contended that liability has been wrongly fastened upon the appellant by ignoring the said fact.

¶25

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly held liable the appellant to pay the compensation because the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

¶26

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

¶27

The assertion made by the learned counsel for appellant is not supported by any cogent evidence. From the perusal of the record, including the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. regarding the accident, the fact that the deceased was travelling alongwith the goods given in the marriage is not established. In the absence of any evidence, even the factum of marriage is not proved. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased was travelling in the truck for the purpose other than the purpose suggested and thus, was not entitled to travel in a public carriage goods vehicle.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶29

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶30

3.01.2012 gsv

Latif v. Afsana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latif v. Afsana and 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

Sharanjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Avtar Singh and Ors.

Sharanjit Kaur Vs Avtar Singh and Ors.

Phool Singh Vs Arjun Singh & Ors.

Afsana and Ors. Vs Azad and Ors.

Bhoti Devi Vs Bir Singh

Gurchet Singh and Ors. Vs Punsup and Ors.