Dismissed¶31

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Kumud Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2025FAO/3336/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-3336-2025(O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Anil Kshetarpal, J., oral, decided 22.05.2025): New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kumud Kumar and others — insurer's FAO against MACT Amritsar award dated 02.04.2025 of Rs.67,13,214/- (death of Smt. Vanita Narang) dismissed; route-permit defence failed (onus on insurer; notices to ex-parte owner insufficient; separate remedy against owner permissible); additional income of deceased teacher assessed at Rs.90,000/- per annum besides salary upheld on basis of ITRs; 30% liability on driver for parking truck without lights upheld.

What did the court decide?

There being a contract of insurance between the appellant and the truck owner, it is for the Insurance Company to plead and prove that, in the absence of a route permit, it was not liable. ¶24

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs Kumud Kumar and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery rights should have been conferred on the insurer against the truck owner (Manjinder Singh) on the ground that the insured truck lacked a route permit. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

There being a contract of insurance between the appellant and the truck owner, it is for the Insurance Company to plead and prove that, in the absence of a route permit, it was not liable.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Merely sending notices to the owner of the truck is not sufficient; the Insurance Company should have taken active steps to verify the facts, including collecting material from the competent authority.

¶24

Key takeaways

Since the owner of the truck was ex-parte, the Tribunal was left with no choice but to hold that the Insurance Company failed to prove its objection regarding the route permit.ratio¶24
The Insurance Company may, if so advised and permitted in law, avail a separate remedy against the truck owner in regard to the route permit.obiter¶27
The Tribunal did not err in assessing additional income: the deceased was employed as a Teacher in DAV International School on basic pay of Rs.38,700/-, and her income tax returns Ex.P-10, P-11, P13 reflected business income ranging from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.1,54,000/- per annum; accordingly, additional income of Rs.75,00/- per month (Rs.90,000/- per annum) besides salary stands justified.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accidents — Appeal by insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) against MACT Amritsar award of Rs.67,13,214/- for the death of Smt. Vanita Narang dismissed. (i) Route permit objection: burden lay on the insurer to plead and prove that absence of a route permit exempted it; notices to the ex-parte truck owner were insufficient and the insurer should have verified the position with the competent authority; insurer left free to pursue a separate remedy against the owner. (ii) Additional income: deceased was a Teacher in DAV International School (basic pay Rs.38,700/-); ITRs Ex.P-10, P-11, P13 showed business income of Rs.48,000/- to Rs.1,54,000/- per annum; assessment of additional income at Rs.75,00/- per month (Rs.90,000/- per annum) besides salary upheld. (iii) Truck parked partially on road and partially on berm without blinkers or parking lights; 30% liability on the driver held not excessive. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

FAO-3336-2025(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-3336-2025(O&M) Date of decision:22.05.2025

¶5

New India Assurance Company Limited

¶6

..Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kumud Kumar and others ..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 3

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The Insurance Company assails the correctness of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) on 02.04.2025 while awarding Rs.67,13,214/- on account of unfortunate death of late Smt. Vanita Narang.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant and the caveators (claimants) and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

¶15

Learned counsel representing the appellant has made the following submissions:-

¶16

i) The Insurance Company issued two notices to Manjinder Singh owner of truck bearing no.PB-05T-9733 for production of route permit but there was no reply to the said notices. Hence, the recovery rights should have been given to the appellant to

¶17

REKHA SIHAG 2025.05.27 00:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

FAO-3336-2025(O&M) 2

¶19

recover the amount from Manjinder Singh if the insured vehicle did not possess the route permit.

¶20

ii) The Tribunal has assessed the additional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per month, besides, the income generated from his salary. He submits that in the absence of evidence, the Tribunal erred.

¶21

iii) The Tribunal has also erred in foisting liability to pay 30% of the compensation upon the truck owner, driver and the Insurance Company even when the truck was stationary and parked.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that there was no valid route permit with the truck. He submits that onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove that fact. Moreover, the income of the deceased from coaching/tuition work is proved from the income tax returns.

¶23

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶24

There is a contract of insurance between the appellant and the truck owner. Hence, it is for the Insurance Company to plead and prove that in the absence of route permit the Insurance Company was not liable. It is not sufficient for the Insurance Company to send a notice to the owner of the truck. It should have taken active steps to verify the aforesaid facts including collecting material from the competent authority. Once the owner was ex-parte, the Tribunal was left with no choice but to hold that the Insurance Company has failed

¶25

REKHA SIHAG 2025.05.27 00:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

FAO-3336-2025(O&M) 3

¶27

to prove its objection. In any case, the Insurance Company, may if so advised and permitted in law, avail the remedy against the owner in this regard.

¶28

With regard to the second submission, it may be noticed that the deceased Smt. Vanita Nagpal was employed as a Teacher in DAV International School. She was getting basic pay of Rs.38,700/-. Apart from that her income tax returns Ex.P-10, P-11, P13 reflect business income ranging from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.1,54,000/- per annum. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed error in assessing her income as Rs.75,00/- per month (Rs.90,000/- per annum) as per additional income besides, the amount of salary.

¶29

With respect to the last submission, it may be noticed that the truck was parked partially on the road and partially on the road berm without switching on blinkers or parking lights. Hence, the liability to the extent of 30% foisted on the driver, who parked the vehicle, without switching on the parking lights or giving any other signal about the parked truck, is not excessive.

¶30

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out.

¶31

Hence, dismissed.

¶32

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶33

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) 22.05.2025 JUDGE rekha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

REKHA SIHAG 2025.05.27 00:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Kumud Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Kumud Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karmi Vs Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and Others

Suresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Randhir Singh

Balrajwinder Singh Vs Jasbir Singh Kooner and Others

Jai Inder Singh and Another Vs D.I.G (Prov.) and Another

Narinder Singh through Gpa Vs M/S Aman Industries and Others

Baldev Singh Vs Kamaljit Singh