Allowed

(O&M) Smt.Ravi Devi etc. v. Narender Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2014FAO/952/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Tribunal's dismissal of a fatal accident petition for a deceased Constable, the High Court held the dismissal grossly unjust. Setting aside the order, the court reworked compensation based on income, awarding Rs. 10,98,878 with interest against the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Award passed by the Tribunal set aside; compensation of Rs. 10,98,878 with interest granted; liability fixed on the insurance company.

(O&M) Smt.Ravi Devi etc. Vs Narender Kumar — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

FAO No.952 of 1996

¶3

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

¶4

FAO No.952 of 1996 Date of Decision.26.05.2014

¶5

Smt. Rani Devi and others

¶6

......Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Narender Kumar and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

None for the respondents.

¶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.

¶18

The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of a male aged 28 years who was alleged to have died in a motor accident. The deceased was a Constable and the contention on behalf of the claimants was that he was on his duty managing traffic when a Matador hit against him and sped away. The FIR had been lodged against the driver but the Tribunal reasoned that the non-examination of the author of the FIR was material and that the claimants had withheld material evidence. An adverse inference has been drawn against the claimants and the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

¶19

Admittedly the accident had taken place on 15.02.1994 and the FIR was lodged on the same day on the basis of statement of one Nanu Ram. He was also a Police Constable manning the traffic at the

¶20

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.05.26 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

FAO No.952 of 1996

¶23

road circle. The recital that the FIR reveals is that he along with deceased Suresh Kumar were standing on the left side of the road to check the vehicles coming from the side of Hansi Road and he had directed the deceased Suresh to stop a particular vehicle coming from the side of Hansi road. He stated that a Matador bearing No.DL-2CD7864 came at a fast speed and even when the deceased was giving a signal to stop the vehicle, the driver hit him which resulted in the deceased falling on the road and coming by grievous injuries in his right thigh and also on the hip joint. When he was taking care of the Constable Suresh Kumar, the Constable on duty on Jind side gave a signal to stop the vehicle but the driver of the Matador took the vehicle about 50 to 55 paces ahead from the spot and stopped the vehicle and ran towards the fields. The driver had thus given a hot chase but he escaped from the place without being caught. The complainant said that he could identify the driver if he was produced. I do not find anything suspicious about the FIR which was registered soon after the accident. If the vehicle had been stopped there and the driver could not be caught even the identify of the driver was not known, the identity of the vehicle was sufficient to cast the liability against the owner and the insurer. I cannot find anything amiss from the evidence placed before the Tribunal and I do not think that there had been any cause for reasoning that there was any suppression of material facts. The owner of the Matador van was perhaps the most competent person to speak about the involvement of the vehicle and also place the driver before the Tribunal. If there was a doubt that there was collusion between the owner and the claimants and that the owner had only Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.05.26 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

FAO No.952 of 1996

¶25

-3-

¶26

colluded the claimants then it should have been possible for the insurer to elicit such fact by calling upon the driver and owner to share the details of the involvement or otherwise of the vehicle. If the insurance company would not take any steps to gather information about accident which was stated against the driver of the insured vehicle, I cannot allow for an inference of collusion or make any adverse inference against the claimants. The dismissal of the petition is, in my view, grossly unjust. On the other hand, the Tribunal must have seen the non-examination of the driver or owner or any evidence on the side of the insured to speak about the collision as material. In this case that was sufficient to uphold the claim of the claimants.

¶27

The matter would require to be assessed for compensation on the basis of documentary evidence produced that he was earning 2884/-. He was also said to be engaged in agricultural operations and contributing about 2000/- per month. I would take the total income to be 3884/- per month taking the contribution from agriculture by 1000/- and rework the compensation under the various heads as under:-

¶28

	FATAL ACCIDENTS
Age	28 years
Occupation	Constable
Claimants	Widow, 2 minor children parents	and
	Heads of claim		Tribunal	High Court
Sl. No.			Amount (Rs)	Amount (Rs.)
1	Income			3884
2	Add, % of increase 50%			5826
3	Less, Deduction			4369.50
4	Multiplicand (annualized multiplying 12)	by		52,434
5	Multiplier			17

¶29

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.05.26 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

FAO No.952 of 1996

¶31

-4-

¶32

	FATAL ACCIDENTS
6	Loss of dependence	8,91,378
7	Medical Expenses & Transportation
8	Loss of Consortium	1,00,000
9	Loss of love and affection	1,00,000
10	Loss to estate	2500
11	Funeral expenses	5000
	Total	10,98,878

¶33

The total compensation payable shall be ` 10,98,878/-. This

¶34

amount shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The entitlement shall be distributed amongst the claimants in the ratio of 2:2:2:1:1. The liability shall be on the insurance company.

¶35

The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶36

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶37

May 26, 2014 Pankaj*

¶38

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.05.26 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

(O&M) Smt.Ravi Devi etc. v. Narender Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Smt.Ravi Devi etc. v. Narender Kumar

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

Kamlesh Vs Mohammad

Smt Kailo Devi Vs Ram Singh

(O&M) Sumitra Devi and Ors. Vs Ramesh and Ors.

Smt Basant Kaur Vs the Financial Commissioner (a)Pb etc.

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs Sh. Balbir Singh & Ors.

Devender Vs Karambir Singh