Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Gurpreet Kaur And Ors on 30 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:059175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.04.2024
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .... Appellant
VERSUS
GURPREET KAUR & ORS .... Respondents
AND
FAO-3137-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.04.2024
GURPREET KAUR & ORS .... Appellants
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR & ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant in FAO-3860-2016 and
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company in FAO-3137-2016.
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate,
Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate and
Mr. Darpan Bansal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4 in FAO-3860-2016 and
for the appellants in FAO-3137-2016.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order will dispose off both the above captioned
appeals being FAO-3860-2016 filed by the Insurance Company and FAO-
3137-2016 filed by the claimants challenging the award dated 04.02.2016
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Tribunal').
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059175
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M) -2-
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that on 20.12.2014
deceased Satwinder Singh was stated to be riding on his motorcycle bearing
registration No.PB-65-Z-4416 on the left side of the road at a moderate speed
from Zirakpur to Banur. At about 9:15 am when he reached near Village
Rampur Kalan, little behind Indian Oil Petrol Pump, one Tata Ace bearing
registration No.PB-11-BN-5326 came at a high speed being driven in a rash
and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of Satwinder Singh by coming on
the wrong side of the road. Satwinder Singh fell down and received multiple
injuries. He was shifted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-
32, Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. Regarding the incident FIR
No.133 dated 21.12.2014 was registered at Police Station Banur. It was averred
in the claim petition that the deceased was a businessman and was earning a
monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal, on the basis of the statement of
the eye-witness, held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration
No.PB-11-BN-5326. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on the record
the Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Annual income Rs.1,82,650/-
2 Amount after applying [Rs.1,82,650/- - Rs.45,663/-] =
deduction 1/4th Rs.1,36,987/-
3 Multiplier of 17 [Rs.1,36,987 x 17] = Rs.23,28,779/-
4 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-
6 Transportation Rs.5,000/-
7 Total Compensation Rs.24,43,779/-
8 Interest 6% per annum
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059175
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M) -3-
3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that
the author of the FIR did not step into the witness box in the present case
and that the entire case is a planted case inasmuch as the author of the FIR
had given a different vehicle number and the registration number i.e. PB-11-
BN-5326 cropped up at a later stage. It is further the contention that the
author of the FIR, who was the uncle of the deceased, got recorded his
supplementary statement on the same day on which the FIR was record and
stated that due to nervousness he had given a wrong vehicle number and that
in his supplementary statement a different vehicle number was given and the
details of the driver were also mentioned. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company would further contend that though the Income Tax Returns were
placed on the record, however, there is no details of the nature of the
business that was being carried out by the deceased and hence the reliance
on the Income Tax Returns is wholly misplaced.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would contend
that the eye-witness of the accident had stepped into the witness box and
filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief (Ex.PW-2/A) wherein he deposed
that on 20.12.2014 deceased Satwinder Singh was going on his motorcycle
bearing registration No.PB-65-Z-4416 on the left side of the road at a
moderate speed and that his motorcycle was hit by one Tata Ace bearing
registration No.PB-11-BN-5326 which was being driven rashly and
negligently at a very high speed. It is further the contention of the learned
counsel for the claimants that the Income Tax Return for the assessment year
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059175
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M) -4-
2013-14 was placed on the record as Ex.PW-4/A and for the assessment year
2014-15 as Ex.PW-4/B and that the income of the deceased has rightly been
assessed by the Tribunal relying on the Income Tax Returns. It is further the
contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that no amount has been
awarded towards future prospectus and that the amounts awarded under the
conventional heads and under loss of consortium are on the lower side.
There is no challenge to the deduction made to the extent of 1/4th and the
multiplier applied as '17'.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case no doubt the author of the FIR did not step
into the witness box, however, one of the eye-witness, who is admittedly not
related to the deceased, had stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and had
given his affidavit in examination-in-chief (Ex.PW-2/A) wherein he
specifically deposed that he had seen the accident and that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle. The said eye-witness was subjected to detailed cross-examination. A
perusal of the cross-examination would reveal that there is not even a
suggestion put to the said witness that he was not present at the time of the
accident or that he was not an eye-witness to the said accident. The argument
of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the accident actually
took place with vehicle bearing registration No.CH-04-E-1660 and not with
Tata Ace bearing registration No.PB-11-BN-5326 deserves to be rejected.
Simply because the author of the FIR did not step into the witness box
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059175
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M) -5-
would be no ground to hold that the case was a planted case. Further still, the
author of the FIR had specifically stated in his supplementary statement that
at the time of the accident he got nervous and had given a wrong vehicle
number. Subsequently the correct number and the details of the driver were
given and, as noticed by the Tribunal, the driver of the offending vehicle was
also facing criminal trial. Further still, the Insurance Company itself had
examined ASI Nahar Singh (RW-2) who had clarified the position and
deposed that after the registration of the FIR he visited the spot where
vehicle bearing registration No.CH-04-E-1660 was present but it was not in
a damaged condition whereas Tata Ace bearing registration No.PB-11-BN-
5326 which was also standing there was in a damaged condition. The
Tribunal has further observed that the fact was further clarified from the
photographs (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-10). In view of the overwhelming evidence,
there is no manner of doubt that the accident took place with the offending
vehicle i.e. Tata Ace bearing registration No.PB-11-BN-5326. Hence, the
argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company stands rejected.
The second argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that
there is no evidence on the record regarding the nature of the business being
carried out by the deceased is also noticed to be rejected inasmuch as once
the Income Tax Returns of the deceased were placed on the record, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed his income.
7. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company being FAO-3860-2016 stands dismissed. The argument of the
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059175
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M) -6-
learned counsel for the claimants that no amount has been awarded towards
future prospectus as well as the argument that the amounts awarded under
the conventional head and loss of consortium are on the lower side deserves
to be accepted in view of the law laid down in National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram
& Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam
M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].
8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Annual income Rs.1,82,650/-
2 Amount after applying [Rs.1,82,650/- - Rs.45,663/-] =
deduction 1/4th Rs.1,36,987/-
3 Future prospectus (40%) [Rs.1,36,987/- + Rs.54,795/-] =
Rs.1,91,782/-
4 Multiplier of 17 [Rs.1,91,782 x 17] = Rs.32,60,294/-
5 Loss of estate [Rs.15,000 + 20% increase] =
Rs.18,000/-
6 Funeral expenses [Rs.15,000 + 20% increase] =
Rs.18,000/-
7 Loss of Consortium :
(i) Parental [48,000 x 2] = Rs.96,000/-
(ii) Filial [48,000 x 1] = Rs.48,000/-
(iii) Spousal's [48,000 x 1] = Rs.48,000/-
[Total Rs.1,92,000/-]
8 Total Compensation Rs.34,88,294/-
9. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:059175
256-A FAO-3860-2016 (O&M) -7-
The amount shall be apportioned between the claimants as directed by the
Tribunal.
10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award of the
Tribunal is modified and the appeal filed by the claimants being FAO-3137-
2016 stands disposed off with the above modification. The appeal of the
Insurance Company stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
30.04.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
