Partly allowed

(O&M) the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surinder Kumari and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2014FAO/2460/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal challenging the quantum and liability of a motor accident compensation, the High Court upheld the compensatory award but remanded the liability issue to the Tribunal for fresh consideration to allow the owner to explain the engagement of the driver.

What did the court decide?

Compensatory award upheld; liability matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after evidence is led by the owner and insurer.

(O&M) the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surinder Kumari… — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

FAO No.2460 of 1996

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.2460 of 1996 Date of Decision.27.03.2014

¶5

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another

¶6

......Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surinder Kumari and others ......Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

The appeal is as regards the quantum as well as liability. The deceased was a person aged 20 years and the claimant was the mother. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of ` 2,88,000/- and the grievance of the insurer is that the Tribunal has applied a multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased and not of the claimant. There is also an argument that the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 24 which is unacceptable.

¶19

I have considered the argument that the multiplier adopted is high but taking note of the recent developments of law in the subject providing for prospect of increase in every situation whether it is private

¶20

or public employment and also providing for a large slice of Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.04.01 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

FAO No.2460 of 1996

¶23

compensation for loss of love and affection even to a parent, the compensation assessed at ` 2,88,000/- cannot be said to be high. I will, therefore, maintain the award of compensation as regards the quantum and dismiss the appeal against the claimants.

¶24

The case would require to be considered only on the issue of liability on the alleged ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, the insurance company relied on a verification report made by the surveyor that the licence which was said to be originally issued at Guwahati had not been indeed issued by them. It had been subsequently renewed admittedly at the DTO office at Muktsar and though the witness admitted that they had renewed the licence, the details of the alleged original issue from the office at Guwahati as found the document which was brought to the Tribunal and the document which had been placed before them on the basis of which a renewal had been made had varied.

¶25

The law has undergone a change since the decision of the Tribunal allowing for consideration of a view that a valid renewal made by a DTO office on even a fake licence would be valid, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and subsequent line of cases which have held that even a valid renewal without checking on the validity or otherwise of the fake character would also be taken as fake. The case cannot conclude as regard liability without affording an opportunity to the owner to give his own version about the circumstances under which he engaged the services of the driver. That could be done only by a remand and therefore, the case is remanded only for issue of Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.04.01 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

FAO No.2460 of 1996

¶27

-3-

¶28

consideration of the liability where the owner or driver will have an opportunity to give his version and the insurer will also be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses and may also bring their own witness if they so choose to do.

¶29

The finding regarding liability is set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of observations made above. For such an adjudication, it is not necessary that the claimant should be joined since I have already upheld the award passed in favour of the claimants against the insurer. The provision for right of recovery for the insurer will ultimately abide by the decision of the Tribunal after the evidence is taken and adjudication made in that regard.

¶30

For appearance of parties before the Tribunal on

¶31

01.05.2014.

¶32

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶33

March 27, 2014 Pankaj*

¶34

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.04.01 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

(O&M) the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surinder Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surinder Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurbax Lal Vs State of Haryana

Beant Kaur and Others Vs Amrik Singh and Others

Pushpa Devi Vs Suba Singh

(O&M) Balwant Singh etc. Vs Mohinder Kaur etc.

(O&M) Chamkaur Singh Vs Vedu and Another

Sukhdev Kaur Vs Kasturi Lal