Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Ins. Co. Ltd vs Bijanti & Ors on 22 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on:- 08.08.2023
Pronounced on:- 22.09.2023
(1) FAO-78-2014 (O&M)
Bijanti and others
...Appellants
Versus
Shiv Kumar and others
...Respondents
(2) FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
... Appellant
Versus
Bijanti and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate
for the appellants in FAO-78-2014 and
for respondents No. 1 to 6 in FAO-1253-2014.
Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO-78-2014
and for respondents No. 7 and 8 in FAO-1253-2014.
Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate
for the appellant in FAO-1253-2014
and for respondent No. 3 in FAO-78-2014.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The appellants - Bijanti and her minor children namely
Deepak, Divya Kumari, Nisha Kumari and Manisu (through their mother
i.e. appellant No. 1 being natural guardian) have filed the instant appeal
1 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
bearing FAO No. 78 of 2014 for modification and enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide impugned Award dated
18.04.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar,
whereas, the appellant - The United India Insurance Company Limited has
filed appeal bearing FAO No. 1253 of 2014 for setting aside the impugned
Award as referred above. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same
Award dated 18.04.2013, therefore, the appeals are taken up together for
disposal.
2. The facts of the case are that Bijanti and minors namely
Deepak, Divya Kumari, Nisha Kumari and Manisu (through their Natural
Guardian, mother i.e. petitioner No. 1 Bijanti) and Shanti Devi (who
expired during the pendency of claim petition) had filed claim petition
under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of
compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum on
account of death of Rajesh Prasad in a Motor Vehicular accident. It is
submitted that at the time of accident, deceased Rajesh Prasad was 34
years old and was doing the job of "Helper" in M/s Super Industries,
M.I.E., Bahadurgarh and earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. On the fateful day
of 08.12.2006, at about 10:30 a.m. Rajesh Prasad alongwith his brother-in-
law Dinesh Kumar were going from Modern Industrial Area, Post Office
Bahadurgarh to their residence on their respective cycles. When they
reached near Mama Chowk, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, all of a sudden one
Tractor bearing Registration No. HR-13-8914 with water-tanker which
was being driven by respondent No. 2 Satya Narain came from the side of
Bhadurgarh in a rash, negligent and reckless manner at a very high speed
and hit the bicycle of Rajesh Prasad with great force. Due to the impact,
2 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
Rajesh Prasad fell down and died on the spot. Regarding this accident, FIR
No. 293 dated 08.12.2006 under Section 279, 304-A of I.P.C. was
registered against respondent No. 2 at Police Station City, Bahadurgarh.
Hence, the claim petition.
3. The claim petition was contested by all the respondents. In the
joint written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, preliminary
objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, not approaching the
Court with clean hands were taken. It is admitted that the respondent No. 1
is the owner of Eicher Tractor referred above. However, it is submitted that
the alleged accident was caused due to the negligence and recklessness of
deceased cyclist Rajesh Prasad. The offending vehicle was insured with
respondent No. 3, therefore, the answering respondents are not liable to
pay any compensation, as alleged. On merits, all the facts were denied. It
was claimed that the amount mentioned in the claim petition is highly
exaggerated. Neither the vehicle of the respondent No. 1 was involved nor
the respondent No. 2 was responsible in any manner for causing alleged
accident. Hence, it was prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed
with costs.
4. The Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 also filed
separate written reply taking the stand that claim petition was not
maintainable in the present form. It was alleged that the offending Tractor
was involved in the accident in-collusion with local police. The occurrence
of alleged accident was denied by the answering respondent. It was
submitted that according to the petition, driver of Tractor was driving the
Tractor attached with water-tanker for supply the water to the residents of
the area of Bahadurgarh at the time of accident. Therefore, the driver of the
3 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
Tractor was required to possess Driving License qua Heavy Transport
Vehicle. However, he was not possessing the same. The Tractor with
water-tanker was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance
policy. Therefore, the answering respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. On merits, all the facts were denied for
want to knowledge with the prayer that the claimants/petitioners may be
put to strict proof of the income of deceased victim and regarding the
claim for compensation. It was prayed that the claim petition filed by the
petitioners may kindly be dismissed qua the answering respondent -
Insurance Company.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Tribunal on 12.01.2011 :-
(1) Whether the accident in question causing death of Rajesh
Prasad had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of
Tractor bearing registration No. HR-13-8914 by its driver,
respondent No. 2? OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners being the
legal representatives of deceased Rajesh Prasad are entitled to the
compensation for the death of Rajesh Prasad having been
occurred in the accident in question, if so, to what amount and
from whom? OPP
(3) Whether respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and
effective driving license at the time of accident, if so, its effect?
OPR-3
(4) Whether the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the
present petition? OPR-3
4 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
(5) Whether the insured had violated the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy, if so, to what effect? OPR-3
(6) Relief.
6. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner No. 1
Bijanti herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed through
her duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The petitioners further examined Ram
Niwas, Deputy Superintendent, General Hospital, Bahadurgarh as PW-2
and Lal Babu Singh as PW-3. Thereafter, learned counsel for the
petitioners tendered certified copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as
Ex.P-2 and inspection report of offending vehicle as Ex.P-3 and closed the
evidence.
7. In order to rebut the case of the petitioners/claimants, the
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Satya Narain himself stepped into the
witness box as RW-1 and deposed through his duly sworn affidavit
Ex.RW1/A. The respondents further examined Ravinder Kumar,
Registration Clerk, RTA Authority, Bahadurgarh as RW-2, Satish Kumar,
R.C. Clerk, RTA Authority, Jhajjar as RW-3 and Sunil Kumar, DRK,
Judicial Branch, Jhajjar as RW-4. Thereafter, learned counsel for the
respondents No. 1 and 2 tendered into documentary evidence copy of
driving license as Ex.R-1, copy of Registration Certificate as Ex.R-2, copy
of Insurance Policy as Ex.R-3, certified copy of judgment dated
01.10.2007 as Ex.R-4, certified copy of statement of Dinesh as Ex.R-5 and
closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 tendered certified copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.R-6 and closed the
evidence.
8. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
5 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
all the parties, the claim petition filed by the petitioners/claimants was
allowed by passing impugned Award dated 18.04.2013 vide which
compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of institution of the petition till its actual
realization was awarded, as detailed therein.
9. Feeling aggrieved of this Award, the appeal bearing FAO
No.78 of 2014 has been preferred by appellants/claimants Bijanti and
others, whereas, the appeal bearing FAO No.1253 of 2014 has been
preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsels representing
the parties in both the appeals. Learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants in FAO-78-2014 argued that the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar passed the Award dated 18.04.2013 vide
which the compensation was granted to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs alongwith
interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim application till
realization of the amount, which is inadequate and the award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be modified. It is pointed that the factum of accident
was proved on record by examining one of the eye-witness Lal Babu Singh
PW-3. On the fateful day of 08.12.2006, at about 10:30 A.M. the deceased
victim Rajesh Prasad alongwith Dinesh Kumar were coming on their
separate cycles from Modern Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh towards their
residence and when they reached near Mama Chowk, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh,
the offending Eicher Tractor bearing Registration No. HR-13-8914
alongwith water-tanker came at a high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and hit against the cycle of Rajesh Prasad. In this accident, Rajesh
Prasad suffered serious injuries, as a result, he lost his life. Regarding this
6 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
accident, FIR bearing No. 293/08.12.2006 was registered under Section
279/304-A of IPC, Police Station City, Bahadurgarh. The copy of
Postmortem Report is Ex. P-1. The claim application was filed by the
present appellants/claimants i.e. Bijanti - widow alongwith four minor
children - claimants No. 2 to 5 and claimant No. 6 Shanti Devi who died
during the pendency of the claim petition. The deceased Rajesh Prasad was
working as a Helper with M/s Super Industries, M.I.E., Bahadurgarh and
was drawing salary of Rs. 5500/- per month. The entire family was
dependent upon him. However, the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jhajjar while assessing the quantum of compensation has
wrongly taken the income of deceased as Rs. 4500/- per month. Similarly,
inadequate compensation of Rs. 20,000/- has been granted regarding the
expenditure on funeral and last rites. The compensation awarded for loss
of consortium as well as loss of supervision and guidance of a father
towards his children as Rs. 8800/- is also inadequate and meager. The
interest awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar is
also towards the lower side. It is prayed that the appellants/claimants are
entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. Therefore, the Award dated
18.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar
may kindly be modified.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company in FAO-1253-2014 argued that in the case in
hand, the accident or rash and negligent driving on the part of Satya Narain
- respondent No. 2 was not proved on record. The evidence led by the
claimants was not trustworthy. As per their own version, Rajesh Prasad
was returning home alongwith Dinesh Kumar. However, the claimants
7 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
failed to examine Dinesh Kumar, author of the F.I.R. as witness before the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. The learned counsel for
the appellant/insurance company pointed out that learned counsel for
insurance company had examined Sunil Kumar, DRK, Judicial Branch,
Jhajjar as RW-4 who had proved on record the copy of judgment in
Criminal Case No. 239 of 2006 decided on 01.10.2007, case titled "State
Versus Satya Narain" where Satya Narain was acquitted of the charge
framed against him for want of evidence. Copy of judgment is Ex.R-4 and
copy of statement of Dinesh Kumar recorded before the Criminal trial
Court is Ex.R-5. The statement of Lal Babu Singh PW-3 was wrongly
relied upon by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. There
is nothing on record to show that he was eye-witness to the accident.
Infact, Satya Narain - respondent No. 2 arrayed as driver stepped into the
witness box as RW-1. He deposed that police had come to his house on
08.12.2006. He was falsely involved in the accident case. He had filed
application Ex.R-7 regarding his false implication and ultimately he was
acquitted of the charge framed against him in the said FIR and the copy of
judgment is Ex.R-4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar
has totally ignored the aforesaid facts and wrongly came to the conclusion
regarding issue No. 1 that the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of Satya Narain, driver - respondent No. 2.
The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
further raised the issue that Satya Narain, the alleged driver of the Tractor
bearing No. HR-13-8914 was not holding the valid effective driving
license at the time of accident which is Ex.R-1. As per this driving license,
he was competent to drive light transport vehicle and a tractor only. The
8 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
registration certificate of the aforesaid Tractor is Ex.R-2 and the unladen
weight of the Tractor is 1650 kg. At the time of accident, the said Tractor
was carrying a water-tanker, therefore, the total weight of the alleged
offending Tractor had exceeded the permissible limit. The driver was
supposed to have a driving license for Heavy Goods Vehicle/Heavy
Transport Vehicle. Therefore, the Tractor was being driving in
contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance company. The
learned counsel for appellant/insurance company has relied upon the
authority of Delhi High Court cited in 2014(83) R.C.R.(Civil) 1 in case
titled "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sanjay Singh & Ors.". In
this case, the Tractor hit a car and its driver had sustained injuries. The
insurance company disputed its liability on the ground of breach of policy
as the offending Tractor was being driven on road. During evidence, it
came on record that the Tractor was coming out of the field and this
showed that the Tractor was used for agricultural purposes. In that case,
there was no evidence produced on record to show that the Tractor was
used for any commercial purpose by the owner of the said Tractor at the
time of accident. Therefore, the aforesaid authority relied upon by learned
counsel for appellant/insurance company does not support their version.
The learned counsel for appellant/insurance company further relied upon
authority of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, cited in 2004(1) ACJ 321,
in case titled "Rajabeti and Anr. Versus Ramshri and Ors.", where in
that case, the insurance company had taken the plea that the Tractor-
trolley was not being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, there was
breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In that case, the
person was sitting on the edge of the Tractor-trolley and he fell out of
9 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
Tractor and was run over and lost his life. In that case, it was held that
insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. But in the case in
hand, the aforesaid authority relied upon by the appellant-insurance
company is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
further raised the issue that the Tractor was being used in contravention of
the terms and conditions of insurance policy. As per the registration
certificate of the offending Tractor Ex.R-2, it was to be used only for
agricultural purposes. However, at the time of accident, the Tractor was
carrying water-tanker in the Municipal Limits of Bahadurgarh. Therefore,
there was contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy
and for this reason the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jhajjar. Even the quantum of compensation awarded by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar is without justification.
The Postmortem Report was not proved by examining any doctor. The age,
profession and the income of deceased is also not proved on the file. The
findings of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar are liable to
be reversed, holding the liability of insurance company to pay the
compensation alongwith interest as detailed in the impugned Award dated
18.04.2013. It is prayed that the appeal preferred by the
appellant/insurance company may kindly be accepted.
11. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants in FAO-78-2014 as well as learned counsel for
appellant/insurance company in FAO-1253-2014 and have gone through
the trial Court record carefully. Smt. Bijanti and others filed claim petition
10 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation
on account of death of Rajesh Prasad in a motor vehicular accident,
allegedly caused by respondent No. - 2 while driving his Tractor bearing
registration No. HR-13-8914 rashly and negligently. The claim application
has been filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore,
the onus was on the claimants to establish the rash and negligent driving
on the part of respondent No. 2 regarding which specific issue No. 1 was
framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. The
learned counsel for claimants had examined Lal Babu Singh as PW-3. He
categorically stated that on the fateful day of 8.12.2006, at about 10:30
A.M. late Rajesh Prasad and Dinesh Kumar were returning on their
respective cycles from Modern Industrial Area, Post Office Bahadurgarh
and when they were near Mama Chowk, M.I.E. Bahadurgarh, the
offending Tractor alongwith water-tanker bearing registration No. HR-13-
8914 came from the side of Bahadurgarh at a high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the cycle of Rajesh Prasad. Rajesh Prasad
suffered serious injuries on account of which he lost his life. Apart from
this, the learned counsel for claimants has placed on record copy of FIR
No. 293/08.12.2006 under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C. Police Station City,
Bahadurgarh. Later on, the investigation was carried out and respondent
No. 2 - Satya Narain, driver of the aforesaid Tractor with water-tanker was
challaned. However, during the trial Dinesh Kumar did not support the
prosecution version, as a result, Satya Narain - respondent No. 2 was
acquitted of the charge framed against him on account of lack of evidence.
The copy of judgment of acquittal dated 01.10.2007 in Criminal Case No.
239 dated 23.12.2006 is Ex.R-4. However, in the case in hand, the accident
11 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
is proved on record from the testimony of other eye-witness Lal Babu
Singh, who is examined as PW-3. The accident, registration of FIR against
Satya Narain - respondent No. 2 and presentation of challan are not
disputed. The statement of Lal Babu singh recorded as PW-3 before
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar is sufficient to prove the
factum of accident as well as rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No. 2 who while driving the Tractor with water-tanker rashly
and negligently hit the same against the cycle of Rajesh Prasad. The victim
succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Copy of
Postmortem Report is Ex.P-1. On this point, I am supported by the
authority cited in Civil Appeal No. 5220 of 2022, Supreme Court of
India, in case titled "Janabai wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. Versus
M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd.", under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where it was explained in para No. 10, which
reads as under : -
"10. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges
in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no
reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of
appellant no. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident.
The application under the Act has to be decided on the
basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of
evidence which should have been or could have been
led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach
of the High Court is clearly not sustainable."
There are number of other authorities where it is clearly
mentioned that any claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is to be decided on the basis of evidence led before the Tribunal.
12 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
Therefore, I do not agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant/insurance company in FAO-1253-2014. The findings
given by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar pertaining to
issue No. 1 regarding the accident caused by Satya Narain - respondent
No.2 due to his rash and negligent driving while driving Tractor bearing
registration No. HR-13-8914 does not require any interference and the
findings are accordingly upheld.
12. The learned counsel for appellants/claimants in FAO-78-2014
pointed out that quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar vide Award dated 18.04.2013 is towards
the lower side. It is claimed that the deceased victim Rajesh Prasad was
working as a "Helper" with Modern Industrial Area, Post Office
Bahadurgarh and was getting salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month. In order to
prove the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for claimants
examined Bijanti - claimant No. 1 as PW-1 and during her cross-
examination, she conceded that she does not possess any proof regarding
the employment and income of her late husband. The learned counsel for
claimants failed to examine any witness from Modern Industrial Area to
establish the employment and salary of Rajesh Prasad. The claimant No. 1
during her cross-examination further stated that she was also working as a
"Helper" with Swati Factory, Bahadurgarh and was drawing salary of
Rs.3,500/- per month. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that
Rajesh Prasad was working with Modern Industries or he was getting
salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof,
the income of late Rajesh Prasad is assumed as minimum wages of
unskilled worker in Haryana during the time of July, 2006, which is
13 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
mentioned as Rs. 2,484.28/- per month. Therefore, considering this fact,
the salary of late Rajesh Prasad is assumed as Rs. 2,500/- per month
(round figure). In the claim application, it is mentioned that at the time of
accident, he was 34 years of age. When claimant No. 1 stepped into the
witness box, she disclosed her age as 32 years. As per the claim
application, the age of elder son of late Rajesh Prasad is mentioned about
15 years. However, there is no documentary proof on the file to establish
the age of Rajesh Prasad. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jhajjar while considering the aforesaid facts rightly assumed the age of
deceased victim in the age group of 41-45 years. By relying upon the
authority cited in 2013(3) CivCC 15 Supreme Court of India, in case
titled "Rajesh and others Vs Rajbir Singh and others", considering late
Rajesh Prasad a self employed person, 25% increase in income comes out
to be Rs. 625/- and the monthly income comes out to be Rs. 3,125/- and
annual income comes out to be Rs. 37,500/-. But in the case in hand,
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar by giving 50% increase
assumed the income of late Rajesh Prasad to the tune of Rs. 4,500/-.
However, 1/4th deduction towards personal expenditure and multiplier of
14 was rightly applied by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jhajjar. In the case in hand, the claimants were given Rs. 20,000/- for
funeral and last rites and Rs. 8,800/- towards loss of consortium and loss
of supervision and guidance of father for the minor children. Otherwise,
the claimants were entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure and towards loss of consortium,
the wife was entitled to Rs. 40,000/- and similarly, the children would
have been entitled for the loss of love and affection. The learned Motor
14 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar has granted Rs. 6,00,000/- towards the
compensation and the sum total of compensation even assessed with the
aforesaid income is more or less the same. Therefore, in my opinion, the
compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- granted by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar is just and reasonable and the same does not
require any interference. In view of my discussion, the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jhajjar vide Award dated 18.04.2013 does not require any interference.
13. The learned counsel for insurance company in FAO-1253-
2014 raised the plea that Satya Narain - respondent No. 2, the driver was
not holding valid Driving License and the Tractor bearing registration No.
HR-13-8914 was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy. Regarding this fact, specific issues No. 3 and 5 were
framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. The
learned Tribunal has dealt with these issues while deciding issue No. 2 in
para No. 27 to 36. In the case in hand, the Driving License of respondent
No. 2 - Satya Narain, driver is proved on record as Ex.R-1. As per this
Driving License, Satya Narain was competent to drive Light Transport
Vehicle and Tractor and this Driving License was valid up to 20.11.2010.
Therefore, there is a specific recital in the Driving License that respondent
No. 2 was competent to drive a Tractor.
The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
raised the issue that water-tanker was attached with this Tractor-trolley,
therefore, the unladen weight of the vehicle was more than which is
prescribed for Light Transport Vehicle. Therefore, the driver should have a
Driving License to drive heavy goods vehicle. I have considered this
15 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
aspect of the present case. Section 2 clause 21 defines Light Motor Vehicle
which means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of
either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen
weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. The Registration
Certificate of Tractor bearing registration No. HR-13-8914 is Ex.R-2,
according to which the unladen weight of Eicher Tractor is mentioned as
1650 Kg. Therefore, by no means it can be said that the said Tractor, even
though attached with a water-tanker became heavy goods vehicle for
which the Driving License to drive heavy goods vehicle was required for
respondent No. 2.
Thirdly, the learned counsel for appellant/insurance company
also took the stand that the Tractor was being plied for a purpose other
than agricultural purposes without any permission. Therefore, there was
violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The water-tanker
was attached with a Tractor Trolley. For this reason it can be said that the
Tractor was being used for a purpose different than agricultural purpose.
This aspect of the case is rightly dealt by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar in paras No. 34 and 35 of the judgment. The
water-tanker cannot be equated with a 'trailer'. Even as per Section 2
clause 39, it is treated as 'semi-trailer', means a vehicle not mechanically
propelled, which is intended to be connected with a motor vehicle and
which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-imposed on, and a part
of whose weight is borne by that motor vehicle.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, there is nothing on
record to show that respondent No. 2 Satya Narain was not holding valid
Driving License or he was driving Tractor with water-tanker in
16 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
2023:PHHC:126570
FAO-78-2014 (O&M) with
FAO-1253-2014 (O&M)
contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The
findings given by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar
pertaining to these issues do not require any interference and the same are
accordingly upheld.
14. In view of my above discussion, the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-
alongwith interest in favour of the claimants. The findings given by the
learned Tribunal on the issues referred above do not require any
interference. Therefore, the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar dated 18.04.2013 is accordingly, upheld.
Resultantly, the appeal bearing FAO-78-2014 preferred by
appellants/claimants Bijanti and others and the appeal bearing FAO-1253-
2014 preferred by The United India Insurance Company Limited are
accordingly, dismissed.
The copy of record received from the Tribunal be sent back to
the concerned quarter.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another
connected case.
22.09.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126571
17 of 17
