Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4445 (PNJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Rani

2018-11-19

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - These are two appeals whereby the insurer of truck bearing registration No.HR-37C-3689 (for brevity, ‘offending vehicle’) in one appeal and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in other appeal have assailed the award dated 16.04.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The only controversy raised in both the appeals is with regard to the liability to pay compensation awarded to the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a motor vehicular accident took place on 22.05.2015. Surinder Kumar, who was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-01P-6282, lost his life in the said accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was filed by the legal heirs of Surinder Kumar. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence produced, awarded a sum of Rs.16,35,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. The Tribunal while deciding the issue regarding liability to pay compensation to the claimants held that the owner, driver and the insurer are equally, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants and at the first instance, the insurer shall indemnify the insured and thereafter 50% of the said amount shall be recovered from the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. It was held that the driver was holding an in genuine driving licence on the date of accident. 5. Learned counsel for the driver and the owner contended that the driving licence was validly issued by the licencing authority and the Tribunal failed to examine the concerned officer of the licencing authority. 6. Learned counsel for the insurer contended that the Tribunal in its award has held that the driver was holding an in genuine driving licence yet only 50% recovery rights were given. 7. From perusal of the award, it is evident that the Tribunal has bloom hot and cold in the same breath. In the same para, it is stated that the driving licence cannot be said to be fake but it is contrary to a notification. In the end of the paragraph, it was stated that the driver was holding an in genuine driving licence. 8. In the same para, it is stated that the driving licence cannot be said to be fake but it is contrary to a notification. In the end of the paragraph, it was stated that the driver was holding an in genuine driving licence. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue only with regard to the liability to pay compensation is remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunities to the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle to adduce evidence, if so desired. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.01.2019. Both the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.