Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2745 (PNJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ravi Yadav

2019-10-04

RITU BAHRI

body2019
Judgment Ms. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral):-This appeal is by the insurance company disputing the liabilityfoisted upon it by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for brevity,the tribunal’), vide its award/order dated 20.04.2017 whereby the appellant-Company (for short ‘the appellant’) was held liable to make the payment ofcompensation to the tune of Rs.34,07,400/- on account of death of JyotiYadav in a motor vehicular accident on 19.10.2015 when she was going toGovernment Senior Secondary School at Husainka from her villageBudhpur on scooter bearing registration no. HR-36T-4703, in themeanwhile, the offending vehicle came from Rewari side at a high speedand hit the scooty of the deceased. She died on the spot. F.I.R No. 136 dated19.10.2015 under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered in this regardagainst respondent No. 1 at P.S. Rohrai. 2. The learned Tribunal after going through the entire evidence,has granted the compensation as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs.15600/- per month (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects = Rs.15600+Rs.7800 = Rs.23400/- per month (iii) 1/3rd of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.23400-Rs.7800 = Rs.15600/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 17 is applied Rs.15600X 12 X 17 = Rs.31,82,400/- (v) Conventional heads Rs.2,25,000/- (vi) Total compensation Rs.34,07,400/- 3. Learned counsel for the appellant is disputing the factum ofaccident as F.I.R was registered at the behest of uncle of the deceased i.eHawa Singh on 19.10.2015 itself against unknown driver of unknownvehicle. Further Hawa Singh was not the eye witness. The registrationnumber of the offending truck in the supplementary statement of NiteshYadav and Satpal Yadav on 01.11.2015 after 12 days of accident has beenmentioned as GJ-09-RM-3972 instead of GJ-09AV-3972. Both thewitnesses corrected/improved the registration No. as GJ-09AV-3972 on10.12.2015. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant contends that theoffending vehicle in question i.e GJ-09AV-3972 was implanted later on incollusion with local police. 4. Learned counsel further argued that under the conventionalheads, the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount on the higher side andthe compensation should be awarded in view of judgment of Hon’ble theSupreme Court of India in a case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, passed in Spl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. With regard to first argument of learned counsel for theappellant, reference at the very outset can be made to copy of F.I.R (Ex P1)where there is no description of the vehicle has been given by Hawa Singh,as he was not the alleged eye witness of the occurrence. Thereafter,statement of Nitesh Yadav and Satpal Yadav was recorded on 01.11.2015after 12 days of accident in which they mentioned the registration No. ofoffending truck as GJ-09-RM-3972. But subsequently, in supplementarystatement on 10.12.2015, they mentioned the registration No. of offendingtruck as GJ-09AV-3972. 7. This argument is liable to be rejected as the Insurance Companyhas not led any evidence to the effect that the alleged eye witness wereinterested witnessrd or are relatives of the claimants. It was the duty of theInsurance Company to lead evidence. This minor correction in the numberof the offending vehicle will not dent the deposition of the eye witnesses.Further after registration of the F.I.R, challan has been presented against thedriver, who is facing trial. 8. Further the compensation has rightly been awarded by theTribunal and is not liable to be modified in view of judgment of Hon’ble theSupreme Court of India in a case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 (4) RCR Civil 837. Further this Courthas discussed this issue in detail in the judgment titled as Savitri and others vs. Mahabir and others, decided on 24.07.2019 in FAO NO. 4745-2014. 9. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal isdismissed being devoid of any merit.