Partly allowed

Jangir Kaur v. Mohan Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Mar 2012FAO/560/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It set aside a 50% deduction for contributory negligence as impermissible under the strict liability regime of Section 163-A.

What did the court decide?

The deduction of 50% for contributory negligence was set aside; the award of `1,66,500/- carrying interest at 9% per annum was upheld.

Jangir Kaur Vs Mohan Singh and Ors. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No. 560 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 560 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.3.2012

¶4

... Jangir Kaur ................Appellant vs. Mohan Singh and others .................Respondents

¶5

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶6

Present: Sh. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant

¶7

Sh. Kamal Narula, Advocate for

¶8

Sh. K.J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶9

Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate for respondent No.3Insurance company.

¶10

K.C. Puri, J.

¶11

There is a delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application.

¶12

Challenge in this appeal is the award dated 3.5.2010 vide which the claim petition preferred by Jangir Kaur mother of deceased Sukhwinder Singh @ Satwinder Singh, claiming compensation on account of death of Sukhwinder Singh @ Satwinder Singh, in a motor vehicular accident under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶13

FAO No. 560 of 2011 -2-

¶14

1988, was partly accepted.

¶15

The Tribunal assessed the compensation as 1,62,000/- but deducted 50% on account of negligence of the deceased. Another sum of 2,000/- was allowed on account of funeral expenses and a sum of `2,500/- was allowed on account of loss of estate.

¶16

The only part challenged during the course of arguments is that the petition has been filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as such, no deduction can be made on account of contributory negligence.

¶17

However, learned counsel for the Insurance company has conceded the said legal position, but has submitted that claim petition is not maintainable, in as much as, the income of the deceased has been alleged to be 10,000/- per month, although the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as 3,000/- per month. To support this contention, learned counsel for the Insurance company has relied upon the judgment reported as Joginder vs. M/s JSP Services (P) Limited Mehram Nagar, New Delhi and another 2011 ACJ 2125.

¶18

In reply to the above noted submission, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claimant restricts the income of the deceased to the extent of `3,000/- per month. No other ground has been taken by counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments.

¶19

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone

¶20

FAO No. 560 of 2011 -3-

¶21

through the file.

¶22

So far as, finding of the Tribunal that 50% amount should be deducted on account of contributory negligence, is concerned, that does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny. The Parliament in its wisdom has enacted Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which the claimants are not required to prove the negligence. So that part of the award vide which 50% amount has been ordered to be deducted on account of contributory negligence, is concerned, that stands set aside.

¶23

The other point raised by counsel for the Insurance company is that in view of authority in Joginder's case (Supra) , the claim petition itself is not maintainable.

¶24

However, I have considered the said submission, but on the facts of the present case, the said contention cannot be accepted. The award was passed against the Insurance company, but that award has not been challenged by the Insurance company on the ground mentioned above. Otherwise also, counsel for the appellant has restricted the income of the deceased to the extent of 3,000/- per month. In authority reported as **Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,** 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the claimant restricts the income of the deceased to the extent of 40,000/- per year, the claim petition is maintainable. So, in these circumstances, this appeal stands partly accepted and the claimant is held entitled to claim 1,62,000/- as compensation. Another sum of 2,000/- on account of funeral

¶25

FAO No. 560 of 2011 -4-

¶26

expenses and a sum of 2,500/- on account of loss of estate was granted by the Tribunal. By adding the said amount, the claimant is held entitled to claim 1,66,500/- as compensation. The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal. Liability to pay the enhanced amount shall be the same as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶27

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶28

( K.C. Puri ) 28.3.2012 Judge chugh

Jangir Kaur v. Mohan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangir Kaur v. Mohan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhmander Singh Vs Gurdit Singh and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs Bhagwan Dass and Ors.

Geeta Vs Sheetal Minor & Anr.

Sunita Rani and Others Vs Secretary, Pseb, and Others

Sukhwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Teja Singh and Ors.