Dismissed

Dev Darshan v. Daya Nand and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2017FAO/2292/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals regarding compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The court affirmed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's calculation for injuries suffered by a motorcyclist and rejected the owner-cum-driver's plea of invalid license and denial of liability.

What did the court decide?

Both First Appeals (FAO Nos. 2292 of 2013 and 75 of 2013) were dismissed; appeals for condonation of delay also rejected.

Dev Darshan Vs Daya Nand and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

FAO No. 2292 of 2013 FAO No. 75 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of decision : 23.01.2017

¶5

(1) FAO No. 2292 of 2013 (O&M)

¶6

Dev Darshan & anr. ....Appellants V/s Daya Nand & anr. ....Respondents

¶7

(2) FAO No. 75 of 2013 (O&M)

¶8

Dayanand ....Appellant

¶9

V/s

¶10

Dev Darshan & anr. ....Respondents

¶11

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶12

Present: Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No. 292 of 2013 and respondent no. 1 in FAO No. 75 of 2013.

¶13

Mr. R.N. Singhal, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No. 75 of 2013 and respondent no. 1 in FAO No. 2292 of 2013.

¶14

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent no. 2-Insurance company.

¶15

RAJAN GUPTA J.

¶16

This order will dispose of aforesaid two appeals, one having been filed by claimants and the other by owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.

¶17

While the claimants are dis-satisifed with the compensation granted by tribunal, owner-cum-driver denies his liability to pay Ajay Kumar 2017.01.25 13:18I attest to the accuracy andcompensation on the ground that he had a valid driving license at the time of authenticity of this document

¶18

FAO No. 2292 of 2013 FAO No. 75 of 2013

¶19

¶20

accident. Thus, tribunal in the first place, ought to have directed the insurance company to indemnify the claimants with rights, if any, to recover from the owner.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

It appears that an accident took place on 10.09.2010. At about 12.30 p.m. claimant-Dev Darshan was going on his motorcycle to market of Sector 13, Bhiwani. A bolero vehicle was parked in front of House No. 1524, Sector 13 Bhiwani. As the claimant-Dev Darshan was crossing the Bolero vehicle, driver of said vehicle started the same in a rash and negligent manner and struck against his motor-cycle. In the ensuing accident, claimant- Dev Darshan received serious injuries. He preferred a claim petition before the tribunal. For the medical bills, disability, costs of transportation, special diet, attendant and loss of income etc. tribunal awarded a sum of `1,43,526/- as compensation to claimant-Dev Darshan. A perusal of the judgment shows that compensation has been correctly assessed by the tribunal. Sufficient amount has been granted in view of nature of injuries suffered by the claimant-Dev Darshan.

¶23

As regards plea raised by owner that he was holding a valid driving license and the vehicle was not used as a Taxi at the time accident occurred, I find no merit in the same. It is on record that appellant (owner) was authorized to driver motor cycle, LMV-non transport vehicle only. He was not holding a valid and effective driving license to ply transport vehicle. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the plea that tribunal ought to have directed the insurance company to indemnify the claimants with recovery rights. At this stage, appellant (owner) seeks to lead

¶24

Ajay Kumar 2017.01.25 13:18 I attest to the accuracy andadditional evidence to produce certain documents. I reject this plea as he authenticity of this document

¶25

FAO No. 2292 of 2013 FAO No. 75 of 2013

¶26

¶27

had ample opportunity to lead evidence before the tribunal as proceedings remained pending for more than one year. This would amount to reopening of the entire case and reappraisal of the evidence.

¶28

In view of observations made above, aforesaid two appeals are hereby dismissed.

¶29

As both the appeals have been dismissed, applications for condonation of delay in filing and refilling the appeals do not survive.

¶30

January 23, 2017 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶32

Ajay Kumar 2017.01.25 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Dev Darshan v. Daya Nand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Darshan v. Daya Nand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Singh Vs Vikas Partap Singh, Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab

Deviya Vs Sonu & Anr.

Lal Singh & Ors. Vs Hukam Singh & Ors.

Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs Roop Singh etc.

Neki Ram & Anr. Vs Shekhar Vidyarthi