Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 290 (PNJ)

Vinit Kumar v. Savitri Devi

2014-02-06

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. The present appeal has been filed by the LRs of the owner of the offending vehicle, assailing the impugned Award dated 1.4.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (in short 'the Tribunal'), vide which, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as compensation against “no fault liability” to the claimants and the appellants have been held liable to pay the compensation. The claimants have also filed cross-objection No.55-CII-2000, which is also being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation. There was a huge delay of eleven months in filing the claim petition and without condoning the delay, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- against “No fault liability”, which is not sustainable. The appellants were never served. Before filing the claim petition, Tulsi Ram, who was the owner of the offending truck has died. Therefore the claim petition was not maintainable qua a dead person. He further submits that the truck was insured at the time of accident. Therefore the appellants may not be held liable to indemnify the award. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held liable the appellants to pay the compensation. 4. In the cross-objection, filed by the claimants, it has been averred that the learned Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on the file, has wrongly dismissed the claim petition. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Ishwar Chand, driver of the offending truck. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. From the perusal of the Award, it emerges that after filing the claim petition, the process was issued, it was reported that Tulsi Ram had died. Thereafter, the claimants filed an application for impleading his LRs. But the matter was in the knowledge of the driver of the offending vehicle, who was the employee of Tulsi Ram. The fact is not denied that at the time of accident, Tulsi Ram was the owner of the offending truck. However, the claim petition was contested by the LRs of Tulsi Ram, the question of his serving does not arise. The fact is not denied that at the time of accident, Tulsi Ram was the owner of the offending truck. However, the claim petition was contested by the LRs of Tulsi Ram, the question of his serving does not arise. The vehicle was not insured at the time of accident, which is proved on record. The question of delay was not agitated before the Tribunal in filing the claim petition. The parties were not at issue on this point. This being the beneficial legislation, this court deems fit to ignore the point of delay at this stage. Even in the cross-objection, this fact has not been explained by the claimants. 7. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal as well as in the cross-objection. As such, the instant appeal as well as cross-objection is dismissed.