The High Court allowed an appeal for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case. Citing Eshwarappa, it directed the respondents to pay Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 for no-fault liability.
Directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 25,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO-388-1997
2023:PHHC:155959
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
231 FAO-388-1997 Date of decision: 06.12.2023
Dr. Adarsh Gupta
.....Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Lajwant Singh Virk, Advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh.
Mr. Amrinder Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
HAMANT 2023.12.13 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-388-1997
2023:PHHC:155959
-2-
Tribunal has committed grave error while deciding the issue against him by ignoring the said facts. Even no compensation for ‘no fault liability’ was granted to the appellant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer and submit that the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant, thus, there is no need of reappreciation of the same and be dismissed the present appeal.
5. Heard and perused.
6. A perusal of the award reveals since, the claimant-appellant failed to prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on part of respondent No.3, driver of the offending vehicle, as such learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition by meticulously examining the evidence and no glaring defect in the procedure or any patent error can be said to have been committed in ignorance of law, while arriving at the conclusion aforesaid, which may have resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.
HAMANT 2023.12.13 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-388-1997
2023:PHHC:155959
-3-
grant of compensation under the head of ‘No fault liability’, for which a gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Eshwarappa vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa , (2010) 8 SCC 620, wherein the claim for no-fault liability was rejected by the Tribunal as well as High Court, which was set aside by Hon’ble the Supreme Court after making the observations which read thus:
“19. Seen thus, the provisions of Chapter X together with Sections 146 and 147 would appear to be in furtherance of the public policy that in case of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from a motor accident a minimum amount must be paid to the injured or the heirs of the deceased, as the case may be, without any questions being asked and independently of the compensation on the principle of fault. 20. The provisions of Section 140 are indeed intended to provide immediate succour to the injured or the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, normally a claim under Section 140 is made at the threshold of the proceeding and the payment of compensation under Section 140 is directed to be made by an interim award of the Tribunal which may be adjusted if in the final award the claimants are held entitled to any larger amounts. But that does not mean, that in case a claim under Section 140 was not made at the beginning of the proceedings due to the ignorance of the claimant or no direction to make payment of the compensation under Section 140 was issued due to the oversight of the Tribunal, the door would be permanently closed. Such a view would be contrary to the legal provisions and would be opposed to the public policy.”
9. In light of the law laid down in E shwarappa (supra), this Court
finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if a sum of Rs.25,000/- is granted to the claimant-appellant under Section 140 of the Act. Ordered accordingly. The present appeal is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present
HAMANT 2023.12.13 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-388-1997
2023:PHHC:155959
-4-
appeal till its realization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.
10. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the concerned Tribunal for necessary compliance.
| 06.12.2023 | (AMAN CHAU | DHARY) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hemant | JUDGE | ||
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes / |
No | |
| Whether reportable | : Yes / | No |
HAMANT 2023.12.13 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
1 issue framed by the court
Whether compensation should be granted under no-fault liability provisions despite the Tribunal dismissing the claim for negligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Eshwarappa vs. C.S. GurushanthappaFollowed¶32
Eshwarappa vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Adarsh Gupta
Union of India
Aman Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
