Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Gian Singh And Ors on 24 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009842
FAO-973-2023 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:009842
XOBJC-130-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
125
FAO-973-2023 (O&M) &
XOBJC-130-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.01.2024
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..Appellant
Versus
GIAN SINGH AND ORS. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Satwant Singh Rangi, Advocate
for respondent No.1 to 3.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,
the appeal as well as cross-objection filed by the insurance company and the
claimants shall stand disposed of by this common order.
2. In an automobile accident, Sh. Manjot Singh aged about 20
years lost his precious life. He was the only son of his parents. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has
awarded Rs.24,41,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the compensation
amount to the parents and unmarried sister of the deceased.
3. On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the insurance
company contends that Sh. Manjot Singh did not possess driving licence and
therefore, he was contributory negligent in the accident. He further submits
that the driver of the truck namely Sh. Karam Singh possessed driving
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009842
FAO-973-2023 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:009842
XOBJC-130-2023 (O&M) -2-
licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and motorcycle i.e. two
wheeler. He submits that he was not competent to drive heavy vehicle.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
claimants contends that Sh. Manjot Singh was awaiting for the green light at
a four leg intersection and Sh. Karam Singh while driving TATA truck
bearing the registration plate No.PB-11AP-9248 in a rash and negligent
manner came and hit the motorcycle from behind. He submits that in such
circumstances, Sh. Manjot Singh (deceased) was not contributory negligent.
He also relies upon the Supreme Court judgment passed in Sudhir Kumar
Rana Vs. Surinder Singh and others, 2008(12) SCC 436. While pressing
the cross-objection, the learned counsel representing the claimants contends
that the Court has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month, though it has come on record that the deceased was
earning Rs.25,000/- per month by selling milk to the Madanpur Cooperative
Society, Verka, Mohali. He was also working as LIC agent besides helping
his father in agricultural work.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
6. In the facts of the present case, it would not be appropriate to
hold that Sh. Manjot Singh had contributed in the accident, particularly
when he was awaiting for green light at four leg intersection when he was
run over by the truck. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned
counsel representing the insurance company lacks substance.
7. As regard the argument with respect to the driving licence
possessed by Sh. Karam Singh, it is evident that the Tribunal has brushed
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009842
FAO-973-2023 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:009842
XOBJC-130-2023 (O&M) -3-
aside the objection of the insurance company without recording any reason.
In para 14 of the award passed by the Tribunal, it has been noted that
Sh.Karam Singh was holding a valid driving licence. It is not in dispute that
Sh. Karam Singh did possess the driving licence, however, the question is
whether Sh. Karam Singh was legally permitted to drive heavy transport
vehicle. This issue should have been examined by the Tribunal after
appreciating the evidence led by the parties.
8. Sh. Karam Singh despite notice has not entered appearance.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the decision with regard to
the competence of Sh. Karam Singh to drive the vehicle in the context of
liability of the insurance company is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh
decision.
10. As far as the contention of the learned counsel representing the
claimants is concerned, it may be noted that the claimants witness CW-2 Sh.
Gagandeep Singh has stated that late Sh. Manjot Singh was his best friend
and he was not running any dairy. It may be noted here that Sh. Manjot
Singh is stated to be studying in Industrial Training Institute. He is also
working as LIC agent. The Tribunal has already assessed his income at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per month after taking into account his earning from the
commission from LIC and other factors. This Court does not find it
appropriate to modify the same. In the end, the learned counsel representing
the claimants submits that the Tribunal has directed payment of the amount
along with 6% interest, which is on the lower side.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the award passed by the
Tribunal to the extent of quantum of compensation is upheld with
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009842
FAO-973-2023 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:009842
XOBJC-130-2023 (O&M) -4-
modification that the amount shall be payable along with the interest at the
rate of 9% instead of 6%.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal as well as
cross-objection are disposed of.
13. The insurance company through his counsel is directed to
appear before the Tribunal on 19.02.2024, for decision on the question of
liability of the insurance company in the context of driving licence
possessed by Sh. Karam Singh. The Tribunal will make yet another attempt
to serve the notice upon Sh. Karam Singh.
14. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- be remitted to the Tribunal
for disbursement.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
January 24th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009842
4 of 4
