2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
C. R. No. 7180 of 2008
Nirmal Singh
v.
Charanjit Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 01/07/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents no.1 to 3 and 5: Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate.
For the Respondent no. 6: Mr. R. P. Dariya, Advocate for Mr. K. K. Garg, Advocate.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Award--Execution--Objections--Report on warrant of attachment, issued for attachment of land, reveals that, when attachment was sought to be made, it was found land has already been sold by judgment-debtor--Impugned order that attachment of land was effected prior to execution of sale deed in favour of objectors set aside--Matter is remanded for fresh decision of objections. (Para 10 & 11)
Showing posts with label Motor Vehicles Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Motor Vehicles Act. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 642 of 1988 (O&M)
Satish Kumar
v.
Rattan Lal Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the appellant-claimant Satish Kumar: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Negligence--As per the medical evidence injury was at the shoulder joint and arm--In normal circumstances it cannot be expected that a person will keep his entire arm outside window--Bus and truck were so close that it hit shoulder of claimant, as a result of which he suffered serious injuries on account of which his arm had to be amputated--Fact that both vehicles crossed each other so closely that it resulted in causing injury to occupant of the bus itself show rash and negligent driving--No Interference. (Para 10)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Right arm of appellant amputated from shoulder resulting in disability to extent of 70%--Appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- on account of conveyance charges and Rs. 2,000/- on account of special diet and Rs. 40,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of income and extra expenditure to be made by him on account of his being handicapped, making it a total of Rs. 89,000/-.--Amount of enhanced compensation shall be payable to appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till disbursement of compensation. (Para 18)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 642 of 1988 (O&M)
Satish Kumar
v.
Rattan Lal Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
For the appellant-claimant Satish Kumar: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Negligence--As per the medical evidence injury was at the shoulder joint and arm--In normal circumstances it cannot be expected that a person will keep his entire arm outside window--Bus and truck were so close that it hit shoulder of claimant, as a result of which he suffered serious injuries on account of which his arm had to be amputated--Fact that both vehicles crossed each other so closely that it resulted in causing injury to occupant of the bus itself show rash and negligent driving--No Interference. (Para 10)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Right arm of appellant amputated from shoulder resulting in disability to extent of 70%--Appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- on account of conveyance charges and Rs. 2,000/- on account of special diet and Rs. 40,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of income and extra expenditure to be made by him on account of his being handicapped, making it a total of Rs. 89,000/-.--Amount of enhanced compensation shall be payable to appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till disbursement of compensation. (Para 18)
Friday, August 13, 2010
Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 2049 of 1994 (O&M)
Smt. Anguri Devi & Ors.
v.
Ramesh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency--Contribution by deceased on account of Group Insurance Scheme is a kind of expense of premium paid for which benefit of insurance must have been paid to family was rightly reduced by Tribunal for purpose of calculation or dependency. (Para 8 & 9)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Calculations--Claimants being five reducing 1/3rd on account of personal expenses for purpose of calculation of dependency is set aside--Dependency directed to be calculated by reducing 1/4th therefrom--Considering age of deceased to be 30 years plus, multiplier of 16 would be quite reasonable--Monthly income of deceased is Rs. 3,379/- i.e., Rs. 40,548/- per annum--After application of cut of 1/4th, dependency comes to Rs. 30,411/- per annum--Applying multiplier of 16, compensation payable to claimants comes out to Rs. 4,86,576/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,87,000/-.--In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of consortium awarded--Amount on account of loss of consortium shall be paid to widow only--Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till its payment--Out of enhanced amount of compensation, Rs. 25,000/- each along with interest shall be paid to parents of deceased and rest of compensation shall be paid to widow considering fact that she had been taking care of family all along ever since death of husband. (Para 10 & 11)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 2049 of 1994 (O&M)
Smt. Anguri Devi & Ors.
v.
Ramesh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Dependency--Amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not be reduced from salary of deceased for purpose of calculation of dependency--Contribution by deceased on account of Group Insurance Scheme is a kind of expense of premium paid for which benefit of insurance must have been paid to family was rightly reduced by Tribunal for purpose of calculation or dependency. (Para 8 & 9)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Calculations--Claimants being five reducing 1/3rd on account of personal expenses for purpose of calculation of dependency is set aside--Dependency directed to be calculated by reducing 1/4th therefrom--Considering age of deceased to be 30 years plus, multiplier of 16 would be quite reasonable--Monthly income of deceased is Rs. 3,379/- i.e., Rs. 40,548/- per annum--After application of cut of 1/4th, dependency comes to Rs. 30,411/- per annum--Applying multiplier of 16, compensation payable to claimants comes out to Rs. 4,86,576/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,87,000/-.--In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of consortium awarded--Amount on account of loss of consortium shall be paid to widow only--Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till its payment--Out of enhanced amount of compensation, Rs. 25,000/- each along with interest shall be paid to parents of deceased and rest of compensation shall be paid to widow considering fact that she had been taking care of family all along ever since death of husband. (Para 10 & 11)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 919 of 2009 (O&M)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
v.
Biri Bai & Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Sunil K. Sharma, Advocat for the Respts No. 1 to 7 in FAO Nos. 919 and 1251 of 2009, respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 1256 of 2009 and repoets No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 921 of 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Award challenged on ground that in spite of fact that Insurance Company was not held liable, still it has been directed to satisfy award first and thereafter recover same from owner of offending vehicle--Recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Paravatheni and another a Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred matter to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to decide following questions:
1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay amount in law to claimants under Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can Court yet compel it to pay amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover same from owner of vehicle.
2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of Constitution, and what is scope of Article 142. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
F.A.O. No. 919 of 2009 (O&M)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
v.
Biri Bai & Ors.
{Decided on 17/02/2010}
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Sunil K. Sharma, Advocat for the Respts No. 1 to 7 in FAO Nos. 919 and 1251 of 2009, respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 1256 of 2009 and repoets No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 921 of 2009
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Award challenged on ground that in spite of fact that Insurance Company was not held liable, still it has been directed to satisfy award first and thereafter recover same from owner of offending vehicle--Recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Paravatheni and another a Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred matter to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to decide following questions:
1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay amount in law to claimants under Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can Court yet compel it to pay amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover same from owner of vehicle.
2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of Constitution, and what is scope of Article 142. (Para 5, 7 & 8)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 150 of 1998 (O&M)
Devinder Kumar alias Sonu
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 and for the driver and owner in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998 and for the claimants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Claim that appellant suffered head injury is not borne out from any evidence produced on record--She had suffered only fracture in her arm, which was plastered--On account of that, Tribunal has already awarded compensation to tune of Rs.24,600/-.--Manner, in which amount of compensation has been determined, on account of pain and sufferings, which will take care of special diet, which appellant had to take during period she remained under treatment--On account of medical treatment and loss of income for period she remained bed ridden, sufficient amount has already been awarded--Claimant not entitled to further enhancement. (Para 6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Only oral statement of claimant that he received injury on his left eye--No medico-legal report was produced in support of claim--Evidence of some private doctor sought to be produced, which was not found to be trust worthy--Though appellant had registered a criminal case against driver of vehicle, but even in that appellant did not state before police that he had received injury in his left eye or same was completely damaged in accident--In investigation got conducted by Insurance Company, it was found that claimant had lost sight of his left eye after he got operated same--Tribunal did not find substance in claim of appellant that he suffered any damage to his eye on account of accident and finding to that effect cannot be faulted with--Appeal dismissed. (Para 12)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Valid Driving License--Liability of Insurance Company--Tribunal has found as a fact that driver of vehicle, was born on 15.10.1978--In support thereof, documents were produced from school where he was studying, which are in form of school leaving certificate, application form for admission and copy of school register etc--In all these documents, date of birth was mentioned as 15.10.1978--Date of issuance of driving licence was found as 4.1.1994 and date of accident is 28.7.1994--Two new documents, sought to be produced on record by appellants along with application for additional evidence shows that entry in register of births was got made on 22.12.1997 by showing date of birth as 4.3.1974, for which a certificate was got issued--It was after decision of claim petitions by Tribunal on 28.8.1997--A fresh certificate was got issued from school showing his date of birth as 4.3.1974, which could not possibly be relied upon considering evidence already on record from school where he was studying, which is not in form of one or two documents, rather, at four different places and one of them being application form for admission where his father had himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.10.1978--No illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in holding that driving licence held by driver of vehicle on date of accident was not valid--Insurance Company could not be made liable to indemnify insured. (Para 18, 19 & 20)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
F.A.O. No. 150 of 1998 (O&M)
Devinder Kumar alias Sonu
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 22/01/2010}
Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998 and for the driver and owner in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants in FAO Nos. 203 and 205 of 1998 and for the claimants in FAO Nos. 150, 159 and 236 of 1998.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Claim that appellant suffered head injury is not borne out from any evidence produced on record--She had suffered only fracture in her arm, which was plastered--On account of that, Tribunal has already awarded compensation to tune of Rs.24,600/-.--Manner, in which amount of compensation has been determined, on account of pain and sufferings, which will take care of special diet, which appellant had to take during period she remained under treatment--On account of medical treatment and loss of income for period she remained bed ridden, sufficient amount has already been awarded--Claimant not entitled to further enhancement. (Para 6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Only oral statement of claimant that he received injury on his left eye--No medico-legal report was produced in support of claim--Evidence of some private doctor sought to be produced, which was not found to be trust worthy--Though appellant had registered a criminal case against driver of vehicle, but even in that appellant did not state before police that he had received injury in his left eye or same was completely damaged in accident--In investigation got conducted by Insurance Company, it was found that claimant had lost sight of his left eye after he got operated same--Tribunal did not find substance in claim of appellant that he suffered any damage to his eye on account of accident and finding to that effect cannot be faulted with--Appeal dismissed. (Para 12)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Valid Driving License--Liability of Insurance Company--Tribunal has found as a fact that driver of vehicle, was born on 15.10.1978--In support thereof, documents were produced from school where he was studying, which are in form of school leaving certificate, application form for admission and copy of school register etc--In all these documents, date of birth was mentioned as 15.10.1978--Date of issuance of driving licence was found as 4.1.1994 and date of accident is 28.7.1994--Two new documents, sought to be produced on record by appellants along with application for additional evidence shows that entry in register of births was got made on 22.12.1997 by showing date of birth as 4.3.1974, for which a certificate was got issued--It was after decision of claim petitions by Tribunal on 28.8.1997--A fresh certificate was got issued from school showing his date of birth as 4.3.1974, which could not possibly be relied upon considering evidence already on record from school where he was studying, which is not in form of one or two documents, rather, at four different places and one of them being application form for admission where his father had himself mentioned his date of birth as 15.10.1978--No illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in holding that driving licence held by driver of vehicle on date of accident was not valid--Insurance Company could not be made liable to indemnify insured. (Para 18, 19 & 20)
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
D.S. Jaspal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
F.A.O. No. 179 of 1990
D.S. Jaspal & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/04/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future.
Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Accident not denied--Specific case set up that due to failure of brakes he could not control bus--Bus was coming from hilly area, therefore, certainly, it must have started with a pre-check up of whole machinery including brakes--Driver has admitted that during journey brakes of bus were in order--Mechanical report showing failure of brakes has not been proved--Driver must have applied brakes on earlier occasions even while crossing railway track--It is not his case that brakes were not working at that time--Thus, it does not appeal to reasons that brakes had failed only at juncture where he was also to stop bus for traffic checking on barrier--From consistent testimony of injured witnesses as well as from circumstances of case, an inescapable conclusion could be arrived that driver was driving bus at high speed, having failed to control same, it dashed in to a car causing one casualty, rendering three occupants as seriously injured--Photographs reveal that car has been completely smashed therefore speed of bus could be well assessed--Plea that bus was being driven at speed of 5-6 kms per hour--No tenable. (Para 18)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Determination of--Principle of determination of compensation was considered on rule of restitution in intergrum which means that compensation is measured at cost of repair or repairing original position applies only when if and so far as original position can be restored--If not possible, Tribunal must endeavour to give fair equivalent in money--Bodily injury shall be treated as deprivation which entitled claimant to damages--Compensation awarded should not be token but should be an adequate and reasonable to achieve statutory goal. (Para 24)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. (Para 26)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--Claimant remained admitted in P.G.I. for two months with an advice of a second operation for hip fracture of left hip bone--He continued attending hospital as an out door patient for two months after his discharge from hospital--Due to hip fracture, he could not lift his left leg nor could he drive four wheeler--He spent about Rs.6000/- on medicines and Rs.5000/- on special diet--He needed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for operation of hip fracture in Sweden--He remained away from job for three months and suffered loss of Rs.9000/-.--According to doctor, there was dis-location of both hips and he was operated upon on 14.4.1987--Also testified that he was advised physiotherapy till 18.7.1987 and on 10.11.1987, he determined his disability as 20% because he was having difficulty in lifting his left lower limb--Compensation awarded under different heads for which Tribunal not awarded any compensation--Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 from Rs. 1,20,000--Claimant is entitled to interest from date of application till realization. (Para 28)
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--According to medical evidence claimant suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 40%--Her leg was shortened by 1- ½ inches--Injured was 31 years of age at time of accident--As per Sarla Verma’s case multiplier of 18 should be applied--Therefore, Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.51840/- on account of permanent disability suffered by her instead of Rs.43200/-.--Claimant is entitled to compensation to tune of Rs.1,74,000/-.
(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Non-pecuniary loss--Claimant was having injury on his left wrist for which plaster was applied--Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital again on 22.5.1987 for his operation qua fracture of corpal bone of left wrist--Again he was put under plaster for three months--Injured suffered permanent partial disability as 35%--Since doctor has no where stated that claimant was in any way incapacitated to work for whole of his life and was unable to perform his job, no pecuniary loss could be assessed, but, while calculating non-pecuniary loss, compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. (Para 32, 34 & 35)
(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--Appellant was spending Rs.1000/- per month for maintaining her children, cooking food and to leave children to school and then certainly her notional income even in absence of any data and taking into consideration his multifarious services and duties rendered to family could be assessed at Rs.1000/- per month--
Though in case Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others assessed notinal income of a house wife @ Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, keeping in view that accident took place in year 1987 and value of money was higher at that time, income of deceased assessed @ Rs.1000/- and per month Rs.12,000/- per annum--Thus, while assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency--Deceased was 29 years old and was very active in life, maintaining whole of family including her husband and children--Multiplier of 18 to be applied--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.--Besides, claimants who are husband and children are also to some amount of compensation on account of lose of love and affection and consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is awarded on these heads--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. (Para 36)
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
F.A.O. No. 179 of 1990
D.S. Jaspal & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/04/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future.
Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Accident not denied--Specific case set up that due to failure of brakes he could not control bus--Bus was coming from hilly area, therefore, certainly, it must have started with a pre-check up of whole machinery including brakes--Driver has admitted that during journey brakes of bus were in order--Mechanical report showing failure of brakes has not been proved--Driver must have applied brakes on earlier occasions even while crossing railway track--It is not his case that brakes were not working at that time--Thus, it does not appeal to reasons that brakes had failed only at juncture where he was also to stop bus for traffic checking on barrier--From consistent testimony of injured witnesses as well as from circumstances of case, an inescapable conclusion could be arrived that driver was driving bus at high speed, having failed to control same, it dashed in to a car causing one casualty, rendering three occupants as seriously injured--Photographs reveal that car has been completely smashed therefore speed of bus could be well assessed--Plea that bus was being driven at speed of 5-6 kms per hour--No tenable. (Para 18)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Determination of--Principle of determination of compensation was considered on rule of restitution in intergrum which means that compensation is measured at cost of repair or repairing original position applies only when if and so far as original position can be restored--If not possible, Tribunal must endeavour to give fair equivalent in money--Bodily injury shall be treated as deprivation which entitled claimant to damages--Compensation awarded should not be token but should be an adequate and reasonable to achieve statutory goal. (Para 24)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. (Para 26)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--Claimant remained admitted in P.G.I. for two months with an advice of a second operation for hip fracture of left hip bone--He continued attending hospital as an out door patient for two months after his discharge from hospital--Due to hip fracture, he could not lift his left leg nor could he drive four wheeler--He spent about Rs.6000/- on medicines and Rs.5000/- on special diet--He needed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for operation of hip fracture in Sweden--He remained away from job for three months and suffered loss of Rs.9000/-.--According to doctor, there was dis-location of both hips and he was operated upon on 14.4.1987--Also testified that he was advised physiotherapy till 18.7.1987 and on 10.11.1987, he determined his disability as 20% because he was having difficulty in lifting his left lower limb--Compensation awarded under different heads for which Tribunal not awarded any compensation--Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 from Rs. 1,20,000--Claimant is entitled to interest from date of application till realization. (Para 28)
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--According to medical evidence claimant suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 40%--Her leg was shortened by 1- ½ inches--Injured was 31 years of age at time of accident--As per Sarla Verma’s case multiplier of 18 should be applied--Therefore, Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.51840/- on account of permanent disability suffered by her instead of Rs.43200/-.--Claimant is entitled to compensation to tune of Rs.1,74,000/-.
(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Non-pecuniary loss--Claimant was having injury on his left wrist for which plaster was applied--Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital again on 22.5.1987 for his operation qua fracture of corpal bone of left wrist--Again he was put under plaster for three months--Injured suffered permanent partial disability as 35%--Since doctor has no where stated that claimant was in any way incapacitated to work for whole of his life and was unable to perform his job, no pecuniary loss could be assessed, but, while calculating non-pecuniary loss, compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. (Para 32, 34 & 35)
(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--Appellant was spending Rs.1000/- per month for maintaining her children, cooking food and to leave children to school and then certainly her notional income even in absence of any data and taking into consideration his multifarious services and duties rendered to family could be assessed at Rs.1000/- per month--
Though in case Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others assessed notinal income of a house wife @ Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, keeping in view that accident took place in year 1987 and value of money was higher at that time, income of deceased assessed @ Rs.1000/- and per month Rs.12,000/- per annum--Thus, while assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency--Deceased was 29 years old and was very active in life, maintaining whole of family including her husband and children--Multiplier of 18 to be applied--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.--Besides, claimants who are husband and children are also to some amount of compensation on account of lose of love and affection and consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is awarded on these heads--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. (Para 36)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred. Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
2010(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 290 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Gul Devi & Anr.
v.
Surjit Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 09/03/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Insurance Company; Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred.
Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & 58(6)--Claim Petition--Limitation--Whether claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could be dismissed as time barred--Held,NO
Issue stands authoritatively concluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that even in the cases where the accident had taken place when the 1939 Act was in force and a claim petition had been filed after the enforcement of the 1988 Act, especially after the deletion of Sub-section 3 Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed on account of limitation--It was opined considering the fact that it was a piece of beneficial legislation, where mere delay should not be a ground to non-suit the claimant, who may have lost the bread earner of the family or suffered grievous injuries--In fact, to take care of such situation and also delay in filing of claim petitions and also the disposal thereof, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jai Parkash’s case has issued certain directions to the police authorities as well as the Tribunals in the country to take steps strictly in terms of Section 158(6) of the 1988 Act by recording the Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 and submitting the same to the concerned Tribunal within 30 days of the registration of FIR mentioning requisite details therein--The Tribunals have also been directed to consider such reports as claim applications under Section 166 of the 1988 Act and decide without waiting for formal claim petitions. (Para 9, 15 & 16)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable--Earlier Petition filed by father of deceased dismissed in default--No further proceedings initiated to get that petition restored--Fresh petition filed on his behalf not maintainable--Once claim on his behalf is dismissed, apportionment on account of compensation in his favour will also go. (Para 17)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Mother of deceased granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/--She is also entitled Rs.10,000/- on account of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc.--She is also entitled to interest @ 6% from date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. (Para 18)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 290 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Gul Devi & Anr.
v.
Surjit Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 09/03/2010}
For the Appellants: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Insurance Company; Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Accident--Limitation--Claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could not be dismissed as time barred.
Accident--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 & 58(6)--Claim Petition--Limitation--Whether claim petition filed after deletion of Sub-section 3 of S.166 of 1988 Act for claiming compensation arising out of an accident which had taken place before enforcement of 1988 Act on 1.7.89 could be dismissed as time barred--Held,NO
Issue stands authoritatively concluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that even in the cases where the accident had taken place when the 1939 Act was in force and a claim petition had been filed after the enforcement of the 1988 Act, especially after the deletion of Sub-section 3 Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed on account of limitation--It was opined considering the fact that it was a piece of beneficial legislation, where mere delay should not be a ground to non-suit the claimant, who may have lost the bread earner of the family or suffered grievous injuries--In fact, to take care of such situation and also delay in filing of claim petitions and also the disposal thereof, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jai Parkash’s case has issued certain directions to the police authorities as well as the Tribunals in the country to take steps strictly in terms of Section 158(6) of the 1988 Act by recording the Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 and submitting the same to the concerned Tribunal within 30 days of the registration of FIR mentioning requisite details therein--The Tribunals have also been directed to consider such reports as claim applications under Section 166 of the 1988 Act and decide without waiting for formal claim petitions. (Para 9, 15 & 16)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Claim Petition--Dismissed-in-default--Fresh Petition--Not maintainable--Earlier Petition filed by father of deceased dismissed in default--No further proceedings initiated to get that petition restored--Fresh petition filed on his behalf not maintainable--Once claim on his behalf is dismissed, apportionment on account of compensation in his favour will also go. (Para 17)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Mother of deceased granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/--She is also entitled Rs.10,000/- on account of transportation, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc.--She is also entitled to interest @ 6% from date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. (Para 18)
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Compensation--Release of amount of compensation awarded deposited in fixed deposits declined observing that alleged necessity of petitioner for higher education is not substantiated by any document--Is illegal and non sustainable--As per award amount has to be released to petitioner on attaining age of majority even if he had no immediate necessity for amount--Impugned order set aside--Amount of fixed deposit of petitioner including accused interest ordered to be released.; Tarun Chabbra v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 880
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822
Compensation--Release of amount of compensation awarded deposited in fixed deposits declined observing that alleged necessity of petitioner for higher education is not substantiated by any document--Is illegal and non sustainable--As per award amount has to be released to petitioner on attaining age of majority even if he had no immediate necessity for amount--Impugned order set aside--Amount of fixed deposit of petitioner including accused interest ordered to be released.; Tarun Chabbra v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 880
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Compensation--Release of amount of compensation awarded deposited in fixed deposits declined observing that alleged necessity of petitioner for higher education is not substantiated by any document--Is illegal and non sustainable--As per award amount has to be released to petitioner on attaining age of majority even if he had no immediate necessity for amount--Impugned order set aside--Amount of fixed deposit of petitioner including accused interest ordered to be released.; Tarun Chabbra v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 880
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822
Compensation--Transfer of Vehicle--Liability to bear compensation--Fact that respondent no.2 was registered owner of vehicle in question at time of accident admitted--Truck in question was taken on superdari from police custody after accident by respondent no.2 claiming himself to be owner of vehicle--From facts on record it cannot be said that sale of vehicle as claimed by respondent no.2 was complete in all respects except transfer of ownership in record with Registering Authority--Held; that appellant to whom vehicle was allegedly transferred by way of execution of document though not registered with Registering Authority not liable to bear compensation payable on account of accident in question.; Sham Sunder v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 842
S.163-A--Claim Petition--Maintainability of--Claim by claimant that deceased was of 40 years at time of death and used to earn around Rs.18,000/- p.m. from agriculture and diary farming--Section 163-A of Act is special provision particular for class of persons whose income is Rs.40,000/- p.a.--Person with higher income cannot scale down his income to claim benefit under Section 163-A--Claim petition rightly dismissed being not maintainable.; Mithlesh & others v. Satbir Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 838
S.166--Compensation--Denial of--Accident took place in front of college at 9.30 a.m. when there is heavy rush and traffic--Claimant, who was student neither taken to hospital nor college authorities informed about accident--No MCR recorded--Claimant failed to connect injury with accident--Story put by claimant not believable--He could not claim compensation.; Sudesh v. Virender Singh & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 822
Friday, June 18, 2010
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
S.173--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41, R.27--Accident--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Additional Evidence--Valid driving licence--Driving Licence allowed to taken on record by way of additional evidence--Insurance Company got licence verified from Licencing Authority--Driver of offending vehicle had valid driving licence at time of accident--Impugned part of award granting recovery rights to insurance company set aside.; Dinesh Kumar & Anr. v. Smt. Roshni Devi & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 750
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
S.173--Compensation--Liability of Insurance Company--Valid Driving License--License for heavy motor vehicles issued by RTA, and not by licensing Authority--Lateron, it was renewed upto 19.11.2010--No witness from office of RTA summoned to prove that license was not issued by it--Report made by licensing Authority and RTA confirm that driver was holding valid driving license to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles at time of accident--Insurance Company failed to discharge its onus--Insurance Company is solely liable to pay compensation and has no right of recovery from owner and driver of vehicle.; Haryana Industrial Company Hisar & Anr. v. Sulochna & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 601
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
25% permanent disability--Injured spent a sum of Rs.48,698/- on treatment--Award of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- cannot be said to be on the higher side
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
FAO No.3536 of 2009(O&M)
Hem Ram & Anr.
v.
Vijay Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 22/10/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166, 173--Compensation--25% permanent disability--Injured spent a sum of Rs.48,698/- on treatment--Award of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- cannot be said to be on the higher side. (P.6
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.173--Compensation--Liability to pay compensation--Insurance policy issued on 17.9.2006--Cheque issued in lieu of premium was dishonoured--No premium was paid for issuance of Insurance Policy--Driver and owner are liable to pay compensation. (P.5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
FAO No.3536 of 2009(O&M)
Hem Ram & Anr.
v.
Vijay Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 22/10/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166, 173--Compensation--25% permanent disability--Injured spent a sum of Rs.48,698/- on treatment--Award of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- cannot be said to be on the higher side. (P.6
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.173--Compensation--Liability to pay compensation--Insurance policy issued on 17.9.2006--Cheque issued in lieu of premium was dishonoured--No premium was paid for issuance of Insurance Policy--Driver and owner are liable to pay compensation. (P.5
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
FAO No.4788 of 2009(O&M)
Union of India & Ors.
v.
Smt. Meena Sharma & Ors.
{Decided on 05/10/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.173--Negligence of driver--Finding of fact--Interference with--Accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck of the appellants--Nothing on record to show that the aforesaid findings are contrary to the record or perverse in any manner--Finding of Tribunal upheld. (P.3)
----------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
FAO No.4788 of 2009(O&M)
Union of India & Ors.
v.
Smt. Meena Sharma & Ors.
{Decided on 05/10/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.173--Negligence of driver--Finding of fact--Interference with--Accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck of the appellants--Nothing on record to show that the aforesaid findings are contrary to the record or perverse in any manner--Finding of Tribunal upheld. (P.3)
----------
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Accident--Genuineness of Insurance cover note--Entry regarding timing in disputed cover-note--Disputed cover note procured by owner of offending vehicle after accident
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
FAO No.1136 of 2006
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v.
Hasina & Ors.
{Decided on 25/11/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Deepak Suri, Advocate.
For the Claimant-respondents: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.13: Shri Paul Singh Saini, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Genuineness of Insurance cover note--Entry regarding timing in disputed cover-note--Disputed cover note procured by owner of offending vehicle after accident had taken place so as to fasten liability upon insurance company--Insurance Company not held jointly and severely liable along with driver/owner of offending vehicle to pay compensation amount.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Accident--Liability of Insurance Company--Genuineness of Insurance cover note--Entry regarding timing in disputed cover-note interpolated and tampered with--Original cover note not produced by owner before Tribunals sufficient to draw adverse inference--Vague and evasive plea taken by owner/driver that original insurance cover-note is not traceable inspires no confidence--Disputed cover note procured by owner of offending vehicle after accident had taken place so as to fasten liability upon insurance company--No previous insurance cover of offending vehicle brought on record--Had it been a case of incidental expiry of insurance cover on that day it might not have in unusual recourse for owner to get same renewed on same day--Insurance Company not held jointly and severely liable along with driver/owner of offending vehicle to pay compensation amount--However, Insurance Company directed to firstly indemnify awards and be at liberty to full execution application against driver/owner of offending vehicle and recover compensation amount from them. (P.13, 14, 16 & 18)
----------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
FAO No.1136 of 2006
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v.
Hasina & Ors.
{Decided on 25/11/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Deepak Suri, Advocate.
For the Claimant-respondents: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.13: Shri Paul Singh Saini, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Genuineness of Insurance cover note--Entry regarding timing in disputed cover-note--Disputed cover note procured by owner of offending vehicle after accident had taken place so as to fasten liability upon insurance company--Insurance Company not held jointly and severely liable along with driver/owner of offending vehicle to pay compensation amount.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Accident--Liability of Insurance Company--Genuineness of Insurance cover note--Entry regarding timing in disputed cover-note interpolated and tampered with--Original cover note not produced by owner before Tribunals sufficient to draw adverse inference--Vague and evasive plea taken by owner/driver that original insurance cover-note is not traceable inspires no confidence--Disputed cover note procured by owner of offending vehicle after accident had taken place so as to fasten liability upon insurance company--No previous insurance cover of offending vehicle brought on record--Had it been a case of incidental expiry of insurance cover on that day it might not have in unusual recourse for owner to get same renewed on same day--Insurance Company not held jointly and severely liable along with driver/owner of offending vehicle to pay compensation amount--However, Insurance Company directed to firstly indemnify awards and be at liberty to full execution application against driver/owner of offending vehicle and recover compensation amount from them. (P.13, 14, 16 & 18)
----------
Friday, March 5, 2010
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Civil Revision No. 7164 2009 (O&M)
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
v.
Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.
{Decided on 08/12/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Amendment of Claim petition--Averment that due to inadvertence as previous petition of some other person income had been mentioned as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and consequently same income was mentioned qua claimant at time of filing of claim petition whereas claimant was only earning Rs.3000/- p.m.--Amendment allowed.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.163-A--Amendment of Claim petition--Claimant sought amendment in the claim petition qua column No.5 relating to his monthly income--Claimant a barber pleaded initially that his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month--However, in the application, it has been averred that this was due to inadvertence as in a previous petition of some other person, the income had been mentioned as Rs.15,000/- per month and consequently, the same income was mentioned qua the claimant at the time of filing of the claim petition, whereas, the claimant was only earning Rs.3,000/- per month--Not a case where the claimant wants to convert his claim petition from Section 166 of the Act to Section 163-A of the Act--Claim is also not barred by limitation--In the facts and circumstances--Learned Tribunal rightly allowed the application for permission to amend the claim petition as the mistake in the column of income was due to inadvertence. (P.6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.163-A--Amendment of Claim petition--Averment that due to inadvertence as previous petition of some other person income had been mentioned as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and consequently same income was mentioned qua claimant at time of filing of claim petition whereas claimant was only earning Rs.3000/- p.m.--Amendment allowed. (P.6)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Civil Revision No. 7164 2009 (O&M)
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
v.
Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.
{Decided on 08/12/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Amendment of Claim petition--Averment that due to inadvertence as previous petition of some other person income had been mentioned as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and consequently same income was mentioned qua claimant at time of filing of claim petition whereas claimant was only earning Rs.3000/- p.m.--Amendment allowed.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.163-A--Amendment of Claim petition--Claimant sought amendment in the claim petition qua column No.5 relating to his monthly income--Claimant a barber pleaded initially that his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month--However, in the application, it has been averred that this was due to inadvertence as in a previous petition of some other person, the income had been mentioned as Rs.15,000/- per month and consequently, the same income was mentioned qua the claimant at the time of filing of the claim petition, whereas, the claimant was only earning Rs.3,000/- per month--Not a case where the claimant wants to convert his claim petition from Section 166 of the Act to Section 163-A of the Act--Claim is also not barred by limitation--In the facts and circumstances--Learned Tribunal rightly allowed the application for permission to amend the claim petition as the mistake in the column of income was due to inadvertence. (P.6)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.163-A--Amendment of Claim petition--Averment that due to inadvertence as previous petition of some other person income had been mentioned as Rs.15,000/- p.m. and consequently same income was mentioned qua claimant at time of filing of claim petition whereas claimant was only earning Rs.3000/- p.m.--Amendment allowed. (P.6)
----------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)