Partly allowed

Sunny Goel v. Surinder Kumar and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2019FAO/7881/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the appeal partly. Previously, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the appellant-owner because the permit was allegedly missing. The Insurance Company admitted the permit was genuine. The Court modified the award, making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation instead of the appellant, and ordered the ret

What did the court decide?

Award modified to make Insurance Company liable to pay compensation; deposit of Rs. 25,000 returned to appellant.

Sunny Goel Vs Surinder Kumar and Other — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

F.A.O No. 7881 of 2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M.No. 26007-CII-2017 in/and F.A.O No. 7881 of 2017 Date of decision:- 02.07.2019

Sunny Goel

...Appellant

Versus

Surinder Kumar and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

¶12

Mr. M.B. Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

¶13

RITU BAHRI J.

¶14

C.M.No. 26007-CII-2017

¶15

A short reply by respondent No. 3 to the application filed by the

¶16

appellant, is taken on record.

¶17

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶18

Accordingly, Annexure A-1 to A-3 are taken on record.

¶19

FAO No. 7881-2017

¶20

The present appeal has been preferred by the owner-appellant (for short 'the appellant') against the award dated 14.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') granting the recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the present appellant.

¶21

The issue in this case is as to whether the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle in question, is liable to pay compensation to the

¶22

claimant/Surinder Kumar-respondent No. 1, or as to whether the Gaurav Arora 2019.07.17 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

F.A.O No. 7881 of 2017 (O&M)

¶24

-2-

¶25

respondent-insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in its impugned award. The vehicle owned by the appellant, driven by respondent No. 2 herein, met with an accident resulting into the injuries to the claimant.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset submits that the learned Tribunal has given recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce the permit of the vehicle.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the copy of permit (A-1) which was valid from 12.03.2014 to 11.03.2015 and today a reply has been filed by the Insurance Company admitting that the national permit of the vehicle has been found to be genuine. It was valid throughout the territory of India. It was valid on the date of accident i.e 27.10.2014.

¶28

In view of the reply filed by the Insurance Company, the award dated 14.08.2017 is modified to the extent that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of entire compensation to the claimant.

¶29

The appeal stands partly allowed to the above extent.

¶30

Further it is hereby directed that the amount of Rs.25,000/-

¶31

deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal, vide draft No. 277057 dated 26.10.2017 in the Registry of this Court be returned to him.

¶32

02.07.2019 G Arora

¶33

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶34

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

¶35

Gaurav Arora 2019.07.17 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sunny Goel v. Surinder Kumar and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Goel v. Surinder Kumar and Other

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

Satwant Singh Vs Zora Singh

Brij Bhan Vs Ravish Trehan

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. Vs Gurnam Singh and Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Gurugram and Others

Assistant General Manager (Mm), Bharat Snanchar Nigarm Limited Vs Cmi Limited and Others

Vijay Kumar Bhatia Vs Arihant Kumar Jain