This judgment dismisses two first appeals filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. against an Insurance Ombudsman award regarding compensation for injuries sustained in a single motor vehicle accident.
Both appeals (FAO Nos. 4679 and 4680 of 2014) are dismissed.
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.4679 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1 FAO No.4679 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:09.07.2014
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Dhola Ram @ Dholu @ Raj Kumar & others
....Respondents
2 FAO No.4680 of 2014 (O&M)
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Dara Singh & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. A.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J
This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO Nos.4679 and 4680 of 2014 as both these appeals have arisen out of one common award passed in two claim petitions filed on behalf of the separate set of claimants in each case which have arisen out of one and the same accident involving the same vehicle.
According to the claimants, in both the petitions on
Kadian Savita 2014.07.16 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4679 of 2014
2
21.01.2013, Dola Ram @ Dholu @ Raj Kumar along with Dara Singh were going on a motor cycle from village Balsmand towards Dabri. When they reached ahead of Balsamand near POP Factory, they stopped their motor cycle on their left side to answer the call of nature. In the meanwhile, a tractor bearing No.HR-20V/4856 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the offending vehicle') which was being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Dabri side and hit into the motor cycle, due to which, both the claimants received injuries on their persons.
The claim petitions were resisted by respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle by filing a joint written statement by raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that a false DDR has been lodged against them in collusion with the police only to grab the compensation. It was further averred that offending vehicle was insured with the appellant and dismissal of the claim petitions was sought.
Appellant filed its separate written statement in both the claim petitions raising various preliminary objections stating that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, the factum of accident was denied and it was maintained that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and a false case has been got registered by the claimants. Remaining averments of the petition were denied and dismissal of both the claim petitions was prayed for.
Both the claim petitions were consolidated. No replication
Kadian Savita 2014.07.16 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4679 of 2014
3
was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following consolidated issues were framed:-
1. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle tractor bearing No.HR-20V-4856 by respondent No.1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners in both the petitions are entitled to recover the compensation from the respondents, if so, to what extent? OPP
3. Whether the present petitions of the petitioners are not maintainable in law? OPR
4. Relief.
On the basis of evidence brought on record by the claimants, which was not rebutted, the Tribunal held that accident in question was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.2 in which claimants received multiple injuries on their persons.
In Dholu Ram's case, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation payable at 4,10,695/- whereas in Dara Singh's case, it was held that he was entitled to the total amount of compensation at 1,33,513/-. Issue No.3 was held against the respondents and thus, the impugned awards were passed.
Challenging the aforesaid awards in these two appeals, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 are contrary to the evidence on
Kadian Savita 2014.07.16 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4679 of 2014
4
record and the settled law. It has been further argued on behalf of the appellant that the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident and a false DDR was lodged by the claimants in collusion with the police only to grab the compensation from the respondents.
To support his case, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claimant-Dara Singh himself made a statement before the police that no one was responsible for the accident. Even DDR was recorded after a delay of 11 days and thus, the findings are based on conjectures and surmises and the same are liable to be set aside and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
Argument as raised is misconceived and liable to be rejected outrightly.
It could not be disputed before this Court that claimantsDara Singh and Dhola Ram have appeared in the witness box as PW5 and PW6 respectively and in their examination-in-chief, they maintained that on 21.01.2013, the accident had taken because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and they received multiple grievous injuries on their persons.
It may further be noticed that appellant has not led any evidence to rebut the aforesaid statements on behalf of the claimants before this Court. Even the alleged statement of Dara Singh as argued has not been proved. In fact, appellant has not produced any witness even to formally prove its pleaded case. Merely, non registration of case of negligence against a party to accident is of no
Kadian Savita 2014.07.16 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.4679 of 2014
5
consequence nor it can be taken to be a conclusive evidence of negligence in holding so.
In view thereof, this Court finds no merits in both these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
July 09, 2014 savita
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2014.07.16 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court Award Commissioner's findings of rash and negligent driving were distorted and liable to be set aside?
Whether the appellant insurer is liable to pay compensation awarded to two claimants injured in the same accident?
Whether the dismissal of the claims petition due to lack of negligence case against the driver is a valid defense?
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
Dhola Ram @ Dholu @ Raj Kumar
Dara Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
