Appeal against an awards' compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries. Court dismissed appeal holding appellant's arguments on doubtful involvement were new and not raised or proved before the Tribunal during trial.
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.
FAO No.3748 of 2014 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3748 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:04.07.2014
United India Insurance Company Limited
....Appellant
Versus
Braham Parkash and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
Vide impugned award, MACT Rewari awarded compensation to respondent No.1 on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-10C-2175 driven by respondent No.2, which was owned by respondent No.3 and insured by the appellant. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal held that driver/owner/Insurance Company shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to respondent-claimant, further observing that first liability to satisfy the award shall be of the Insurance Company.
It may also be noticed that the claim petition was
Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.3748 of 2014 (O&M)
2
contested by the owner and driver of the vehicle in question by filing a joint written statement and denying the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle in question in the alleged accident.
Appellant had also filed separate written statement denying the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle in question, further submitting that driver of vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was further denied in the written statement on behalf of the appellant that alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. However, while deciding claim application, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence held that accident was caused due to rash and negligence of offending vehicle by its driver.
In the instant appeal, counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record properly as involvement of offending vehicle is highly doubtful and vehicle was planted just to claim the compensation from the Insurance Company. According to the counsel for the appellant, in the FIR, neither any number of the offending vehicle was given nor the name of the driver of the offending vehicle was referred in the FIR and it has been stated that some unknown vehicle had caused the accident. There is a delay of two months in filing the FIR and thus, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant for an accident which has not been caused by the vehicle insured by it.
Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.3748 of 2014 (O&M)
3
Argument as raised is misconceived and liable to be rejected outrightly.
The argument, as raised, before this Court, does not arise from the impugned award at all. Admittedly, no such argument was raised before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant. Though in the written statement, objection has been taken with regard to the false implication of the vehicle in question, yet neither any issue has been claimed in this regard on behalf of the appellant nor evidence has been produced. No effort has been made to cross examine the witnesses etc. What to talk of bringing on record any evidence on behalf of the appellant, even no one has stepped into witness box on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company even to formally support its pleadings.
Dismissed.
July 04, 2014 savita
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
United India Insurance Company Limited
Braham Parkash and others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
