Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rani And Ors on 30 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:059393
261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1356-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.04.2024
National Insurance Company Ltd ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Rani and Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. H.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
Insurance Company challenging the award dated 28.10.2016 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for
the sake of brevity.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would
contend that earlier the Tribunal had passed an ex-parte award dated
25.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.8,82,500/- while assessing income of the
deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which was later on set aside and thereafter
the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 28.10.2016 for an amount of
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:059393
FAO-1356-2017 (O&M) -2-
Rs.12,22,650/- by assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month.
He would further contend that there was no material before the Tribunal to
assess the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month instead of
Rs.4,500/- per month. The next contention of the learned counsel is that
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle
inasmuch as there was no eye-witness of the accident and the driver has
since been acquitted by the Court in the State case.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3
has contended that the accident stood proved by Sukhchain Singh who
stepped into witness box as CW2 and his testimony could not be shaken in
the cross-examination. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that
the Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per
month and that there is no error in the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the accident had taken place on 19.12.2012.
As per the statement of CW1-Rani, the deceased was 40 years of age at the
time of the accident and he was working as a Mason and was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and was also helping the family in dairy and selling
of milk. Though no documentary proof as regards the income of the
deceased was led on the record, yet being a Masonry labourer, his income
must be more than a daily wager prevailing at the relevant point of time
which was Rs.6,877/- per month and hence the Tribunal has rightly assessed
income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:059393
FAO-1356-2017 (O&M) -3-
7. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company qua negligence on the part of the driver and his acquittal
by the Court in the State case is concerned, merely because the driver of the
offending vehicle has been acquitted in a criminal case cannot be a reason to
hold that there was no negligence on his part or that the accident did not
stand proved. In the case of Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2020) 13 SCC 486] it has been held as
under :
"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim
cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual
occurrence of the accident, has been established, then
the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of
just compensation if the accident had taken place by
reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle
and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly
bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while
deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents,
the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed
in criminal cases."
8. In the case of N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal
[(1980) 3 SCC 457] the case set up was that since the criminal case in
relation to the accident had ended in acquittal, hence, the claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should also be rejected. The Supreme Court
negated the said argument and held as under :
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:059393
FAO-1356-2017 (O&M) -4-
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our
country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate
nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often
persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier
in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several
cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that
innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners
do not escape liability merely because of some doubt
here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases,
culpability must be inferred from the circumstances
where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not
succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
We are emphasising this aspect because we are often
distressed by transport operators getting away with it
thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not
exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers
in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic
impact of culpable driving of public transport must
bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their
neighbour. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no
fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which
pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue
parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember
that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of
the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for
State relief against accidental disablement of citizens.
There is no justification for niggardliness in
compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the
enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting
in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:059393
FAO-1356-2017 (O&M) -5-
several years. The States must appoint sufficient number
of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon
quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already
sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of
delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in
this regard."
9. In Krishan Vs. Tarawati [2011 (3) PLR 29] it was held :
"It is also stated that in the criminal case the witnesses
contradicted themselves in their versions to what they
stated before the Tribunal. This cannot make the
position better, for, a criminal Court's judgement
acquitting a driver would have no relevance in a case
before the Tribunal. The standards of proof of a
criminal case are different from tortious claims for
accident victims that are required to be established
before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider the
issue of negligence by the evidence adduced before it,
uninfluenced by the fact of pendency of the criminal
case or acquittal given by the criminal Court. It will be
relevant no more than the fact that a criminal case had
been registered and that it had concluded before the
criminal Court."
10. In Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Pushpinder Kumar & Ors.
[2017 (4) ACC 395] this Court held that "It is settled law that the Tribunal
decides the claim cases on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and
strict Rules of evidence are not applicable. It is further settled beyond any
doubt that the outcome of a criminal trial is not binding on the Tribunal".
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:059393
FAO-1356-2017 (O&M) -6-
11. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
30.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
