Partly allowed

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita Makol and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2018FAO/3346/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two appeals regarding compensation for a death caused by ammonia gas leakage. The Court modified the Tribunal's award holding the insurer liable at first instance only because the driver failed to meet mandatory qualifications for transporting hazardous goods, granting the insurer the right to recover from the owner and driver.

What did the court decide?

Liability to pay compensation fixed on the insurance company at first instance with recovery rights against the owner and driver.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sunita Makol and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

FAO No.3346 of 2017 (O&M)

¶3

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

¶4

FAO No.3346 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.15.05.2018

¶5

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

¶8

Sunita Makol and others ...Respondents

¶9

FAO No.6275 of 2017 (O&M)

¶10

Sunita Makol and another ...Appellants

¶11

¶12

Jatinder Singh and others ...Respondents

¶13

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶14

Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.3346 of 2017 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.6275 of 2017.

¶15

Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No.6275 of 2017 and for respondent No.1 to 2 in FAO No.3346 of 2017.

¶16

-.-

¶17

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶18

This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing No.3446 of 2017 and 6275 of 2017. The former is at the instance of the insurance company challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum and liability whereas the latter at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement.

¶19

Both appeals arise out of accident occurred on 12.06.2015 wherein a tanker bearing No.GJ-12AT-5251 loaded with ammonia gas got struck against the upper portion of the bridge resulting into leakage of the gas. The deceased-Satpal Makol came

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.06.01 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

-2-

¶22

FAO No.3346 of 2017 (O&M)

¶23

into the contact of ammonia gas, which proved fatal to him. He was stated to be running a sweet shop in the name and style of M/s Lovely Sweets, Doraha and earning 80,000/- per month. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation of 24,65,000/-, took the income of the deceased as 40,000/-, made a deduction of 1/3<sup>rd</sup> and applied a multiplier of 7 including 1 lac each for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and `25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The liability was fastened upon the insurance company to satisfy the claim.

¶24

Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company in FAO No.3346 of 2017 submitted that the Tribunal erred while making a deduction of 1/3^rd whereas it should have been ½ as the son, being major, was not dependent upon the deceased. Moreover, the conventional heads to the tune of `2,25,000/- are on higher side as per the latest law. On the issue of liability, he referred to Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contend that the driver of the offending vehicle was not competent to drive the same, therefore, the liability ought not have been fastened upon the insurance company, thus, urges this Court for modification of the award.

¶25

Mr. Balwinder Singh for Mr. Suveer Sheokand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not providing loss of estate and future prospects on the salary of the deceased, therefore, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced.

¶26

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.06.01 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

FAO No.3346 of 2017 (O&M) -3-

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. As regards the issue of quantum, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/3^rd towards personal expenses. However, as regards the assessment of conventional heads, I am of the view that though the assessment is on higher side as per the latest law but the same would be set off as the claimants were entitled to increase on the salary of the deceased towards future prospects, much less, loss of estate. Therefore, the assessment made by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.

¶29

As regards the issue of liability, as per Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, a person driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods must have knowledge of one Indian Language specified in Schedule VIII of the Constitution and English language and must also go through a training of three days to know about the intricacies of the hazardous goods loaded in the vehicle they used to drive. As per Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature shall be effective for a period of one year and the renewal thereof shall be subject to condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus. Concededly, no such evidence brought on record that the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, had fulfilled the aforementioned qualifications. In the absence of the same, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the liability has wrongly been fastened upon the insurance company.

¶30

In view of the aforementioned, the liability to satisfy the

¶31

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.06.01 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

FAO No.3346 of 2017 (O&M)

¶33

-4-

¶34

aforementioned amount of compensation shall be on the insurance company at the first instance, which shall have recovery rights to recover the same from the owner and driver in accordance with law.

¶35

As an upshot of my finding, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent only. Resultantly, FAO No.3346 of 2017 is dismissed and FAO No.6275 of 2017 is partly allowed.

¶36

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶37

May 15, 2018 Pankaj*

¶38

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes

¶39

Whether reportable No

¶40

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.06.01 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita Makol and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita Makol and Ors.

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

Hoshiar Singh Vs Rulda Ram

Gian Kaur Vs Baljeet Kaur

Shammi Devi Vs Lakesh Kumar

Deepak Kumar Bhardwaj Vs Dalip Singh Yadav and Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Khusial Singh Dead Th Lrs Gurdev Singh and Ors.

Raghbir Singh @ Bira and Anr. Vs Gurdev Singh and Ors.