Partly allowed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narinder Pal Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2014FAO/4358/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed a composite negligence award of ₹2 lacs for a motor vehicle accident injury. Court held compensation reasonable based on medical expenses. Modified award to impose equal liability on both vehicle owners/drivers and affirmed insurer's right to recover from the insured due to invalid driving licence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was modified to impose equal liability on both vehicle owners and the appellant was granted right to recover the amount from the insured.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Narinder Pal Singh & Ors. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.4358 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4358 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:01.07.2014

¶5

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

¶6

....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Narinder Pal Singh @ Lovely and others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶10

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶11

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present:- Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶15

Mr. T.K.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.7.

¶16

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

¶17

Respondent No.1 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the tune of ` 20 lacs on account of the injuries received by him in an accident involving bus No.PB-06-B-2027 owned by respondent No.2 and driven by respondent No.3 and truck No.PB-07-2371 owned by respondent No.5 and driven by respondent No.4 on 27.05.2000 in

¶18

Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

FAO No.4358 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

the area of village Kaunterpur.

¶22

Appellant was hospitalized and treated at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. He had suffered bone fracture of the right humerus bone of the right arm with radial nerve injuries of the right arm. He underwent multiple surgeries and remained admitted in the hospital. He spent a considerable amount on his treatment as per the bills produced on record. He also spent an additional amount for additional diet etc. It is his further case that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 6% and thus, he claimed compensation to the tune of ` 20 lacs. The respondents produced no evidence to rebut the evidence produced on record by the claimant. Though valid insurance policy of the bus in question as on date of accident is produced on record as Ex.R1 but driving licence of both the vehicles were not produced on record.

¶23

The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and the facts established, held that it was a case of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and thus awarded compensation to the respondent-claimant to the tune of ` 2.00 lacs to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.

¶24

Appellant, who is the insurer of bus No.PB-06-B-2027, is in appeal against the aforesaid award of the Tribunal challenging the same on various grounds. It is a matter of fact that half of the compensation amount has already been paid to the respondentclaimant as awarded by the Tribunal by respondent No.7 (i.e. Insurer

¶25

Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

FAO No.4358 of 2011 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

of Truck No. PB-07-2371) and the said respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the award.

¶29

Counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to challenge the amount of compensation as awarded on the ground that the same is excessive. However, it is a matter of record that as per certificate issued by the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana Ex.A169, the amount spent by the respondent-claimant for his treatment comes to more than ` 1,60,000/-. The genuineness of the aforesaid certificate is not in dispute. Neither there is any other evidence to controvert the aforesaid expenses and in view of the aforesaid, no challenge can be made to the amount of compensation payable to the respondent-claimant, as determined, vide impugned award.

¶30

Counsel for the appellant has further raised an argument that Tribunal has failed to fix the ratio of negligence between the bus and truck in question.

¶31

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that both the vehicles were equally negligent and therefore, respondents are liable to pay compensation in equal ratio.

¶32

Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Court that admittedly, the driver of the bus in question was not having valid driving licence and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify for the

¶33

Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶34

FAO No.4358 of 2011 (O&M)

¶35

¶36

compensation payable by the owner of the bus in question and despite the fact that such a finding with regard to driving licence has been recorded against the owner of the bus yet no recovery rights have been granted in favour of the appellant, respondents No.2 and 3 have not put in appearance in this appeal despite having been served. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Kamla and others 2001 ACJ 843, the appellant is held entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid by it from the insured.

¶37

The impugned award is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶38

July 01, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE

¶39

Kadian Savita 2014.07.07 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narinder Pal Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narinder Pal Singh & 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

Mohan Lal Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.

S.C.Chadha Vs Sardar Dilsher Singh Kalha

Ram Phal Vs Rajbir

Ujjagar Singh Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.

Kuntesh and Anr. Vs Jai Singh and Ors.

Chandni Devi & Anr. Vs Balwant Singh & Ors.