Partly allowed

Baljeet Kaur and Others v. Sukhbir and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2024XOBJC/143/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation from the Tribunal by applying 40% future prospects for a deceased driver aged 38 and awarding filial and spousal loss of consortium. It upheld the insurer's recovery right against the owner because the driver's licence had expired more than 30 days prior to the accident.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from ₹14,36,875/- to ₹17,58,900/- with 7.5% interest. Cross-objections by owner dismissed.

Baljeet Kaur and Others Vs Sukhbir and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶2

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶3

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶4

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶5

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶6

On 10.12.2014, Jaspal Singh (deceased) was travelling in Canter No.PB-23F-0778 being driven by one Satnam Singh. Said Canter met with a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Sukhbir Singh, who was driving offending Truck No.HR-73-7653, as a result of which, Jaspal Singh lost the life. FIR No.840 dated 11.12.2014 under Sec3ons 279, 304-A and 337 IPC was registered at Police Sta3on Sadar Karnal regarding the said accident. The widow and three children of deceased – Jaspal Singh filed pe33on under Sec3on 166 of the Motor Vehicular Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V. Act’) against driver, owner (cross-objector herein) & insurer of the offending vehicle, seeking compensa3on on account of the death of Jaspal Singh before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). It was pleaded that deceased was 38 years of age; that he was driver by profession earning ₹20,000/- per month and that claimants were dependent upon his earnings. All the respondents resisted the claim.

¶7

The Tribunal found Sukhbir Singh - respondent No.1 to be responsible for causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. The age of the deceased was found to be about 40 years. As the claimants could not produce any cogent evidence regarding the claimed income of ₹20,000/per month, so his income was taken at the minimum wages of ₹8,100/- per month at the relevant 3me. 25% was added towards future prospects. 1/4^th deduc3on was made on account of self-expenses. Mul3plier of 15 was applied. ACer adding compensa3on towards loss of consor3um, loss of estate and funeral expenses, total compensa3on of ₹14,36,875/- was allowed by the Tribunal vide Award dated 19.12.2017. At the same 3me, it was held that though the offending vehicle was insured at the 3me of accident, but the driver was not having a valid and effec3ve driving licence on the date of accident, inasmuch as his driving licence had already expired and that he had got the same renewed much aCer the date of accident. As such, though the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensa3on amount, but it was given recovery rights against the owner (cross-objector herein) of the offending vehicle.

¶8

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶9

Page 2 of 11

¶10

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶11

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶12

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶13

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶14

Against the aforesaid Award, the claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the age of the deceased was 38 years, i.e. less than 40 years and therefore, 40% amount should have been added towards future prospects. It is also contended that compensa3on towards filial consor3um to the children of deceased has not been granted, to which they are en3tled.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insured/owner of the offending vehicle contends that the accident took place on 10.12.2014; whereas, respondent No.1 – driver had got his driving licence renewed on 19.12.2014, i.e. within 01 month from the date of accident and as such, the insured could not be held liable to pay the compensa3on amount.

¶16

Ld. counsel for the Insurance Company has defended the Award passed by the Tribunal.

¶17

This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record carefully.

¶18

There is no dispute regarding the issue of negligence. The points raised in the appeal and counter claim are only regarding the quantum of compensa3on; and the liability of the owner, as to whether insurance company has been rightly given recovery rights or not.

¶19

Taking up the issue rela3ng to quantum of compensa3on, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants that no documentary or any other cogent evidence was adduced to show that the deceased was earning ₹20,000/- per month as a Driver, as was claimed in the pe33on. The perusal of the Award would reveal that the claimants even could not place on record any driving licence of the deceased to show that he was a professional driver. In these circumstances, the Tribunal did not commit any error in taking the income of the deceased to be ₹8,100/- per month on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant 3me.

¶20

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶21

Page 3 of 11

¶22

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶23

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶24

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶25

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶26

The age of the deceased was tes3fied by the claimants to be 38 years. The Tribunal took the age to be around 40 years based upon the age as men3oned in the postmortem report. Although, the mul3plier of 15 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal, but it has wrongly made addi3on of 25% only towards future prospectus. As per the legal posi3on explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others” 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, if the deceased was up to 40 years of age, 40% of the income is liable to be added towards future prospects.

¶27

Apart from above, the Tribunal has awarded loss of consor3um as ₹40,000/- only to the widow of the deceased. No compensa3on under this head has been awarded to three minor children of the deceased, to which they are en3tled as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others”, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . As such, claimants are held en3tled to the loss of consor3um/filial consor3um under this head as ₹40,000/- to each claimant. Since the present appeal is being disposed of in 2024, therefore, considering the guidelines provided in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 20% more is to be added and as such, they would be en3tled to ₹48,000/- per claimant towards loss of consor3um. Similarly, they are en3tled for funeral expenses and loss of estate @ ₹18,000/- each.

¶28

On account of the aforesaid discussion, the quantum of compensa3on, to which the claimants are en3tled is re-worked out, as under:-

¶29

Deceased: JaspalSingh Age : 38 years No. of claimants : 04	Compensa8on awarde by MACT (in ₹)	d Compensa8on assessed by this Court (in₹)
1. Income	Monthly : 8,100/-	Monthly : 8,100/-
	Annual : 97,200/-	Annual : 97,200/-
2. Addi3on towards future	25%	40%

¶30

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶31

Page 4 of 11

¶32

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶33

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶34

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶35

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶36

	prospects
2.	Annual Income aCer addingfutureprospects	97200+24,300 = 1,21,500/-	97,200+38,880 = 1,36,080/-
3.	Annual Income aCer deduc3on of 1/4	1,21,500-30,375 = 91,125/-	1,36,080-34,020 = 1,02,060/-
3.	Mul3plier	15	15
4.	Loss of dependency	91,125 x 15 = 13,66,875/-	1,02,060 x 15 = 15,30,900/-
5	Loss of Estate		18,000/-
5.	Funeral Expenses	70,000/-	18,000/-
6.	Loss of consor3um
	(i) Parental (ii) Filial		--- 48,000 X 3 = 1,44,000/-
	(iii) Spousal		48,000/- Total :(1,92,000/-)
	Total compensa8on	14,36,875/-	17,58,900/-
	Enhanced compensa8on	17,58,900 – 14,36,8	75 = 3,22,025/-
	Rate of interest	7.5%	7.5 %

¶37

As such, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed to the extent as above. The Award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified by enhancing the compensa3on amount from 14,36,875/- to 17,58,900/- . It is held further that claimants shall be en3tled to said amount alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe33on 3ll its realiza3on. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain as it is i.e., as per award of the Tribunal.

¶38

Coming to the cross objec3ons filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, it has been found by the Tribunal based upon the tes3mony of RW1, an official of the Registra3on Authority, on the basis of the record brought by him that driver of the offending vehicle was issued driving

¶39

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶40

Page 5 of 11

¶41

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶42

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶43

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶44

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶45

licence for the period of 27.03.2006 to 25.03.2009. He got it renewed w.e.f. 02.02.2011 to 01.02.2014. Accident had taken place on 10.12.2014. On the date of accident, the driver was not holding a valid and effec3ve driving licence, as he got it further renewed w.e.f. 19.12.2014 to 18.12.2017 as per the documents Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW1/B proved on record.

¶46

Conten3on of learned counsel for the cross objector- owner is that since the driver had got his driving licence renewed within one month from the date of the accident, and he was not disqualified from holding a valid driving licence, therefore, Insurance Company has been wrongly given the recovery rights. Learned counsel has relied upon :-

¶47

Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, SLP (Civil) No.9027 of 2003, decided on 05.01.2024. [Supreme Court]

¶48

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Devi and others MAC. App. 866/2017, decided on 09.01.2019. [Delhi High Court]

¶49

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohit Dabas & Ors., MAC. APP. 882/2019, decided on 18.11.2019. [Delhi High Court]

¶50

The Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors., MAC. APP No.77/2008, decided on 29.03.2012. [Delhi High Court]

¶51

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Krishnappa, since dead by LRs and others, M.F.A. No.7960 of 2013 (MV-D), decided on 23.06.2020. [Karnataka High Court]

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has defended the Award as passed by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that since the driver did not get his driving licence renewed within one month of the date of its expiry from 01.02.2014, therefore, as on the date of accident, he cannot be deemed to have a valid and effec3ve driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company has been

¶53

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶54

Page 6 of 11

¶55

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶56

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶57

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶58

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶59

rightly given the recovery rights. Learned counsel has relied upon following authori3es:-

¶60

Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Ors., 2008(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 485. [Supreme Court]

¶61

Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 370. [Supreme Court]

¶62

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Mahavir Parshad Sharma and others, FAO-2090-2010 (O&M) and XOBJ-79-CII-2011, decided on 14.02.2012. [Pb. & Hr. High Court]

¶63

Karan Singh and another v. Suraj Bhan and others, FAO No.4759 of 2003 (O&M), decided on 08.02.2017. [Pb. & Hr. High Court]

¶64

Devinder Singh and others v. Rambha Devi and others, FAO No.5978 of 2002, decided on 24.12.2008. [Pb. & Hr. High Court]

¶65

Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 912. [Supreme Court]

¶66

Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Jarnail Singh and others, 2007(15) SCC 28. [Supreme Court]

¶67

Factual posi3on is not in dispute to the effect that driver of the offending vehicle was holding the driving licence to drive the kind of the offending vehicle effec3ve from 02.02.2011 to 01.02.2014. The accident took place on 10.12.2014. During this period, i.e. from the date of expiry of the driving licence on 02.02.2014 3ll 18.12.2014, the driver did not have any valid licence, as he got his licence renewed w.e.f. 19.12.2014 to 18.12.2017.

¶68

Sec3on 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V. Act’) provides about the renewal of the driving licences. It reads as under:-

¶69

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶70

Page 7 of 11

¶71

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶72

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶73

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶74

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶75

“15. Renewal of driving licences. - (1) Any licensing authority may, on applica3on made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry :

¶76

Provided that in any case where the applica3on for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days aCer the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: ”

¶77

19.1 In Ishwar Chand’s case (supra), the driving licence of the driver had expired on 27.08.1994. The accident had taken place on 28.04.1995. The driver got it renewed it later on. The ques3on was that whether the Insurance Company was liable to reimburse the amount of compensa3on payable by the owner to the claimants. Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to Sec3on 15 of the M.V. Act and then held as under:-

¶78

From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Sec3on 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any applica3on for renewal thereof is filed thereaCer, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28.04.1995. As on the said date, the renewal applica3on had not been filed, the driver, did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident.

¶79

In Swaran Singh (supra), whereupon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon, it is stated :

¶80

"45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automa3cally without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to Sec3on 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry.

¶81

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶82

Page 8 of 11

¶83

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶84

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶85

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶86

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶87

Sec3on 15 of the Act does not empower the authori3es to reject an applica3on for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the mean3me the provisions for disqualifica3on of the driver contained in Sec3ons 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be aTracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the maTer, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days aCer its expiry.”

¶88

19.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court further referred to “Na�onal Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai & Others”, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 313 (SC) ; and “ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanjapppan and Others”, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1630 and concluded that as the driver of the vehicle possessed the licence, validity of which had expired 08 months prior to the occurrence, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensa3on amount.

¶89

20.1 The conten3on of learned counsel for the cross objector – owner to the effect that so long as the driver was holding a driving licence and was not disqualified from possessing the same, the insurance company is not absolved from its liability to pay the compensa3on, even if the driving licence had expired and the renewal thereof was made subsequent to the accident, has no merit.

¶90

20.2 Similar conten3on was also raised before this Court in case of Devinder Singh and others v. Rambha Devi (cited supra). This Court held that it might be possible to make such an inference considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh’s case (supra). However, it was no3ced further that the said judgment of Swaran Singh’s case (supra) and catena of various other judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, par3cularly in Ishawar Chand’s case (supra) were considered by the Apex Court in “ Ram Babu Tiwari v. United Insurance Company Ltd.”, 2008(8) SC 165 and Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the context of Sec3on 15 of the M.V.Act held, as under:-

¶91

"It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an applica3on for renewal of licence is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry

¶92

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶93

Page 9 of 11

¶94

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶95

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶96

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶97

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶98

thereof, the same would be renewed automa3cally, which means that even if an accident had taken place with the aforemen3oned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to subsec3on (1) of Sec3on 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the applica3on for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days aCer the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured."

¶99

Same view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Jarnail Singh (cited supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court has also followed the same view in Vidhyadhar Mahariwala’s case (supra) . In that case, driver was possessing a driving licence, the validity of which had expired 06 months prior to the accident. It was held that Insurance Company was not liable. This Court in Mahavir Parshad Sharma’s case (supra); Karan Singh’s case (supra); and Devinder Singh’s case (supra) has also taken the same view. In the circumstances, the contrary view taken by Delhi & Karnataka High Court in the authori3es cited by Ld. Counsel for the cross-objector/owner cannot give any advantage to him.

¶100

In the present case also, the driving licence of respondent No.1driver had expired on 01.02.2014. He did not take any step to get it renewed within 01 month from the date of expiry. Rather, the licence was renewed w.e.f. 19.12.2014 to 18.12.2017. Prior thereto, the accident had taken place on 10.12.2014. Simply because the renewal was got effected within 01 month from the date of accident, is of no significance, inasmuch as the renewal was not got done by the driver within 01 month from the date of expiry of the driving licence. In view of the legal posi3on as explained in Ishwar Singh and other cases , in such circumstances, the renewal shall be effec3ve from 19.12.2014.

¶101

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶102

Page 10 of 11

¶103

FAO No.4282 of 2018 (O&M)

¶104

2024:PHHC: 160320

¶105

XOBJC-143-2019 (O&M)

¶106

2024:PHHC: 160344

¶107

As such, it is held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in fastening the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle and has rightly given the recovery rights to the Insurance Company.

¶108

On account of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal as filed by the claimants is partly accepted; whereas the cross-objec3ons as filed by the owner of the offending vehicle are hereby dismissed.

¶109

Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.

¶110

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶111

December 02, 2024 Sarita

¶112

Sarita Rani 2024.12.02 06:27 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶113

Page 11 of 11

Baljeet Kaur and Others v. Sukhbir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljeet Kaur and Others v. Sukhbir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devinder Kumar Vs Smt. Chanda Devi

Shubhkaranjit @ Shubhkaranjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Singh Vs Boota Singh

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Baljeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Sukhbir and Ors.

Rajan Khera and Another Vs Ramesh Kumar Now Deceased Thr His Son Tarun Kumar and Ors.