Dismissed

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Paramjit Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2014FAO/6492/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 20,46,752. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the respondent's vehicle, relying on an eye-witness and forensic evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award affirming liability and compensation remains unchanged.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Paramjit… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2014

¶5

The New India Assurance Company Limited

...Appellant

Versus

Paramjit Kaur & Ors.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶13

The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, challenging the Award dated 15.04.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (for brevity the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition filed by the widow, two minor children and the mother of Tehal Singh (since deceased) was partly allowed and an award of ` 20,46,752/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was passed.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that Tehal Singh (since deceased) aged about 41 years was a Constable in the Punjab police and posted at CIA staff, Samana. He was getting a salary of ` 27,687/- per month. All the five claimants were dependent upon Tehal Singh. On 20.08.2012, at about 8/8.15 p.m., Tehal Singh (since deceased) while riding on his motorcycle on correct left hand side of the Samana- Ghagga road and reached near the bus stand of village Kakrala, in the meantime, a Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing registration No.PB-11-AS-9120 came from the opposite side, i.e

¶15

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

[ 2 ]

¶17

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶18

Ghagga side, being driven by respondent No.2 Kiranpal at a very high speed, without observing the traffic rules, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle being driven by Tehal Singh (since deceased). Resultantly, Tehal Singh fell down on the road and received several injuries on his person. He was carried to the Civil Hospital, Samana, where after examination, the doctor declared him brought dead. The said accident was witnessed by Sham Lal (PW-3). The matter was reported to Police Station, Ghagga, on the basis thereof FIR No.62 dated 20.08.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, was registered. The autopsy on the corpus of Tehal Singh was conducted at the Civil Hospital, Samana. After collecting the postmortem papers, the claimants filed the claim petition.

¶19

After receiving the notices, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement whereas respondent No.3 filed the separate reply.

¶20

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

¶21

Whether Tehal Singh son of Dalip Singh had died in an accident caused by respondent No.2 while driving Bajaj Tempo Trax No.PB-11-AS-9120 on 20.08.2012 at about 8.15 p.m within the area of police station Ghagga, District Patiala rashly and negligently, as alleged?OPP.

¶22

Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

¶23

Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not

¶24

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶26

[ 3 ]

¶27

having a valid and effective driving licence, if so, its effect? OPR.

¶28

Whether the vehicle No.PB-11-AS-9120 was not having a valid route permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate at the time of accident? OPR-3.

¶29

Relief.

¶30

The claimants produced Paramjit Kaur as PW1, HC Balwinder Singh as PW2 and Sham Lal as PW3 and closed their evidence. The respondents produced Rajinder Singh as RW1 and closed their evidence.

¶31

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and awarded an amount of ` 20,46,752/- as compensation along with interest as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised the arguments that the offending vehicle bearing No.PB11-AS-9120 was not involved in the accident; Sham Lal (PW2) had not witnessed the occurrence and he has been introduced by the claimants just to show involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and to get claim. To elaborate his submissions, the learned counsel contends that the FIR was lodged on the date of accident by one Kewal Krishan alleging that the accident had taken place by an unknown vehicle. Even the Investigating Officer has not been examined, therefore, the learned Tribunal had wrongly concluded that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing

¶33

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶35

[ 4 ]

¶36

registration No.PB-11-AS-9120 which was being driven by Kiran Palrespondent No.2.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶38

To deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, issue No.1 framed by the learned Tribunal would be relevant. The said issue has been discussed in Para No.9 of the impugned award which reads as follows:-

¶39

“ 9. The onus of proving this issue was upon the petitioners/claimants. To prove that, the claimants have examined Sh.Sham Lal as PW3 who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW3/A in which he has provided eye witness account of the accident which is in consonance with the case of the claimants. He was cross-examined at length on behalf of respondents, but he stuck to his guns and his credibility could not be shattered on any material point. I find his presence at the spot at the relevant time to be natural and probable and account given by him to be worthy of reliance. From his cross-examination, nothing substantial favouring respondent has come up. The FIR copy Ex.P1 was got registered on the statement of HC Kewal Krishan. In the FIR, the type and registration of the offending vehicle are not given but the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and its only purpose is to set the criminary machinery into motion. The post

¶40

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶42

[ 5 ]

¶43

mortem report Ex.P2 also corroborates the case of the claimants. Ex.P5 is the copy of the charge sheet which goes to show that respondent No.2 Kiranpal Singh has been challenged (sick, it should be charge sheeted) for causing the death of HC Tehal Singh in a rash and negligent driving of Bajaj Tempo Trax No. PB-11-AS9120 on 28.8.2012 at about 8.15 p.m in the area of village Kakrala.”

¶44

This Court has also perused the affidavit (Annexure A1) at page 22 of the paper book and the cross-examination of Sham Lal (PW3) with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. In his sworn affidavit, Sham Lal (PW3) deposed that on 20.08.2012 Tehal Singh (since deceased) was going on motorcycle on the correct left side of the road at a moderate speed on Samana-Ghagga road. At about 8/8.15 p.m when he was near bus stand Samana- Ghagga, in the meantime, Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing registration No.PB-11-AS-9120 came from the opposite side, i.e Ghagga side, which was being driven by its driver Kiran Pal in a very high speed, without observing the traffic rules, in a rash or negligent manner and stuck against the motorcycle of Tehal Singh. Resultantly, Tehal Singh fell down on the road and received multiple injuries on his person. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Samana, after arranging a motorcycle where Tehal Singh was declared as dead. It was also reiterated that the accident took place on account of sole rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was also averred in the affidavit that the statement of the deponent was recorded by the police of the Police

¶45

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶46

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶47

[ 6 ]

¶48

Station, Ghagga. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondent, Sham Lal (PW3) replied that he took lift from the jeep driver. Except driver and the witness, there was no other occupant in the vehicle no.PB-11-AS-9120. The driver was driving the said vehicle in a negligent manner at a high speed. When the offending vehicle was about 1.5 km from Kakrala, the driver overtook some vehicles and meanwhile the motorcycle driven by Tehal Singh (since deceased) came from the opposite direction and driver of the offending vehicle hit the said motorcycle, as a result, Tehal Singh fell down and sustained injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle did not stop his vehicle at the spot and ran away. The alarm raised by the deponent was not considered by the driver of the offending vehicle. On 22.08.2012, on inquiry by the witness, he came to know about the death of Tehal Singh and thereafter, he reported the matter to the police. From the above deposition and lengthy cross-examination of Sham Lal (PW3) nothing favourable to the appellant has emerged on record. Rather it has well been proved from his deposition that the accident in question had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver Kiran Pal.

¶49

The argument that Kewal Krishan who had reported the matter to the police on the date of occurrence, i.e. 20.08.2012, failed to mention registration number of the offending vehicle by itself would not be sufficient to discard the deposition of PW3. Even non-examination of the Investigating Officer would not be sufficient to disbelieve the claimants' case with regard to the accident caused by the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned

¶50

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶51

FAO No.6492 of 2014 (O&M)

¶52

[ 7 ]

¶53

Tribunal has given the cogent reasons for deciding the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶54

No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶55

For the reasons aforesaid, the present appeal sans merit

¶56

and is hereby dismissed.

¶57

August 25, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶58

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.30 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Paramjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Paramjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansa Ram Vs Vipin Pal @ Bittu and Others

Judge Singh Vs State of Punjab

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Sukhpal Singh and Another

Sukhbir Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

Parkash Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Smt. Guro and Others Vs Sh. Raj Kumar and Others