Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagroop Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2017FAO/5321/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 22,65,000 for death in a motor accident. The court held the Tribunal erred in no by relying on credible witness testimony regarding the deceased's salary.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was dismissed; no compensation amount was altered.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jagroop Singh… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

FAO No.5321 of 2017 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.5321 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Order: 08.08.2017

¶5

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

¶6

..Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jagroop Singh and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶13

C.M.No.16589-CII of 2017

¶14

Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal.

¶15

For the reasons recorded in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶16

FAO NO.5321 of 2017

¶17

The Insurance Company is in appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) assessing compensation to the tune of Rs.22,65,000/- payable to the claimants on account of death of late Sh. Kuljit Singh, who died in a motor accident.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the assessment of the income by the Tribunal is excessive. He has further submitted that the income tax return was filed subsequent to the date of

¶19

Naresh Kumar 2017.08.22 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

FAO No.5321 of 2017 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

incident.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶24

In this case, the deceased was working with a wine contractor. The wine contractor had stepped into the witness box as CW2. He had certified that the deceased was being paid Rs.30,000/- per month after deduction of Rs.3,000/- per month as TDS. Apart from that certificates Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 were filed to support of the fact that the deceased was receiving a salary of rs.30,000/- per month. It has further been noticed that the deceased had completed his degree in Electrical Engineering from Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh.

¶25

Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that such finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is result of misreading of evidence.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the crossexamination of Raj Kumar, the partner of the wine contractor firm, to assert that the partner did not remember the salary paid to other employees. He did not produce the record to show that how much salary was being paid to each of the employee. He submitted that from the reading of the statement, it is established that Raj kumar was trying to support the case of the deceased-employee.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant.

¶28

Raj Kumar, appeared as CW1. Raj kumar states that they kept an accountant in the name of Rinku and all the record with regard to salary

¶29

Naresh Kumar 2017.08.22 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

FAO No.5321 of 2017 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

is maintained by Rinku. The Insurance company did not take any step to summon the aforesaid Rinku.

¶33

In these circumstances, there is no error in the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed.

¶34

August 08, 2017 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

Naresh Kumar 2017.08.22 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagroop Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagroop Singh & 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

Sunder Singh and Ors. Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs Charanjit Singh

Sandeep Mahajan Vs Punjb Wakf Board

Boor Singh Vs Joginder Singh and Anr.

Shiv Ram and Anr. Vs Diwan Singh and Ors.

Narender Kumar Vs Diwan Singh and Ors.