Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2579 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. Jaswant Kaur

2019-09-17

H.S.MADAAN

body2019
Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:- On account of death of Avtar Singh son of Budh Singh in amotor vehicular accident, which took place on 19.9.1989 at about 7:10p.m. in the area of Shingar Cinema, Police Station Division No.6,Ludhiana, statedly on account of rash and negligent driving of truckbearing registration No.PUU-878 (hereinafter referred to as the offendingvehicle) by respondent No.1--Arjan Kumar, the legal heirs of AvtarSingh i.e. his widow--Jaswant Kaur, minor son - Tapinder Singh,daughter--Harleen Kaur, father--Budh Singh and mother GurbachanKaur had brought a claim petition under Section 110-A of the MotorVehicles Act against respondents i.e. Arjan Kumar--driver, Pritam Singh--owner and National Insurance Company Ltd. - insurer of the offendingvehicle, claiming compensation. 2. On notice, all the three respondent had appeared andcontested the claim petition. Issues on merits were framed. Parties wereafforded adequate opportunities to lead evidence. 3. On conclusion of trial, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) while allowing thepetition vide award dated 22.10.1990, awarded compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- to the claimants, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointlyand severally. The amount was ordered to be shared amongst theclaimants as follows: Jaswant Kaur - Rs.60,000/- Tapinder Singh--minor - Rs.70,000/- Harleen Kaur--minor - Rs.70,000/- Gurbachan Kaur - Rs.40,000/- 4. The shares of the minors were ordered to be deposited withState Bank of Patiala at Samrala in fixed deposits for the period till theyattain majority. However, it was observed that Smt.Jaswant Kaur maydraw the interest earned on the amount of the shares of minors aftermoving an application to the Tribunal so as to meet day to day expensesof the minors. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date ofapplication till realization was also granted. The liability of respondentNo.3--insurance company was held to be limited up to Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. This award left the respondent No.2--owner of the offendingtruck aggrieved and he has approached this Court by filing the presentappeal. 6. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondents, andrespondent No.7--insurance company has put in appearance throughcounsel. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 8. The Tribunal in light of the evidence adduced by the partiesand keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, came to theconclusion that respondent No.1--Arjan Kumar had caused the accidentin which Avtar Singh deceased had lost his life, by his rash and negligentdriving of the offending vehicle. 8. The Tribunal in light of the evidence adduced by the partiesand keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, came to theconclusion that respondent No.1--Arjan Kumar had caused the accidentin which Avtar Singh deceased had lost his life, by his rash and negligentdriving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has kept in view the ocularevidence provided by PW4 Raghbir Singh Grewal and PW5 NirmalSingh. Both of them had deposed as per the case of the claimants thataccident in which Avtar Singh had expired had taken place due to rashand negligent driving of such truck by respondent No.1--Arjan Kumar,who had hit the scooter of Avtar Singh going on correct side from the rearside, resultantly Avtar Singh had fallen down and received injuries. FIRhad been got registered by Raghbir Singh Grewal in which truck numberis mentioned. Arjan Kumar had been challaned after completion ofinvestigation. As observed by the Tribunal Arjan Kumar did not seem tohave moved any application to higher police officers that he had beenfalsely involved. Though Arjan Kumar had got his statement recorded asRW1 stating that he was driver on the truck in question but he had notcaused the accident. But his such statement was not accepted by theTribunal. It was also noticed that postmortem report of the deceasedsuggested that injuries had been received in a motor vehicular accident.Therefore, the finding so recorded by the Tribunal is correct and does notcall for any interference. 9. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal hadtaken age of deceased to be 30 years. As per the case of the claimants, thedeceased was running hosiery business at Bijlipur and he had raised a loanof Rs.1,20,000/- from Punjab Financial Corporation for his business beingrun under the name and style of M/s Punjab Knitting Industries and thedeceased was sole proprietor thereof. According to the claimants, thedeceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from hosiery business andRs.1,000/- per month from the avocation of agriculture and all theclaimants were dependent upon him. The deceased had done Masters inArt. As per the jamabandi Ex.6, father of the deceased owned land.Considering the educational qualification of the deceased and the fact thathe was running hosiery business, his monthly income was assessed to beRs.1,600--Rs.1,700/-. No addition towards future prospects was made.His contribution towards the family was taken to be Rs.15,000/- perannum. As such, compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded. No addition towards future prospects was made.His contribution towards the family was taken to be Rs.15,000/- perannum. As such, compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded. TheTribunal took note of the fact that as per insurance policy Ex.R1, theliability of the insurance company was limited up to Rs.1,50,000/-,therefore though the liability of all the three respondents was found to bejoint and several, respondent No.3--insurance company was held to beliable up to 1,50,000/-. I do not find any fault with such finding recordedby the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company has referred tovarious authorities in support of his contention that in terms of thecontract entered into between the appellant--insured Pritam Singh andrespondent--insurance company, the liability of insurance company waslimited up to Rs.1,50,000/-. It was so under the old Act of 1939.Therefore, that contract was rightly enforced by the Tribunal. The firstauthority referred to by him was The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Kaithal Versus Urmila Devi and others, 2013(24) RCR(Civil)547 by aSingle Bench of this Court wherein while dealing with a claim petitionwhere the accident had taken taken place within period of four monthsfrom the date of composition of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the policy wasissued under old Act of 1939, in terms of which liability of insurancecompany was restricted to only Rs.1,50,000/-, observing that since noadditional premium was paid by owner on coming into force of Act, theliability of insurance company would be restricted only to liability ascontracted under old Act i.e. to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. The amount inexcess of liability as determined shall have to be borne only by the ownerand driver jointly and severally. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also referredto authorities i.e. Rajan Versus Sukumaran, 1997 ACJ 778 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chameli Devi, 2010(67) RCR(Civil)471 andThe Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Versus T.B. Chandraprabha and Another, 2000(8) KantLJ 381. 12. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in giving suchdirections. The Award is well reasoned, based upon proper appraisal andappreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is noillegality or infirmity therein. The compensation awarded can certainly benot said to be on higher side. It is just and sufficient compensation. Thereis no ground to reduce the compensation so awarded or to withdraw thedirection with regard to liability of the insurance company being limitedup to Rs.1,50,000/-. 13. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed.