Punjab-Haryana High Court
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. ... vs Kamlesh Kaur And Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:061649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 03.05.2024
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Appellant
VERSUS
KAMLESH KAUR & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-4822-CII-2024
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-7249-CII-2024
3. This is an application for passing an appropriate order in the
application for stay of execution of the award dated 15.11.2023 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
4. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate has appeared and has filed
his memorandum of appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. The
same is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that instead of
hearing the application for stay the main case itself be heard. With the
consent of counsel for the parties, main case is taken on Board today itself.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -2-
FAO-1208-2024
6. Present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the award dated 15.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
7. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that on
05.12.2021 Gurmeet Singh along with wife, namely, Kamlesh Kaur, who is
the claimant-respondent No.1, after meeting their relatives at Kharar were
going to their house at Village Kathgarh, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Nagar (Nawanshahr) on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-32-U-
5232. Gurmeet Singh (since deceased) was stated to have been riding the
motorcycle at a slow speed and on the correct side of the road. Ajit Singh
(brother of Gurmeet Singh) was coming behind them on his own motorcycle
and at about 4:30 pm when they reached near Village Chakla on
Chandigarh-Ropar Highway, a car bearing registration No.HR-01-AD-7032
came from behind which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and after overtaking Ajit Singh struck the motorcycle of
Gurmeet Singh. Due to the accident Gurmeet Singh fell on the sewerage
manhole and received head injuries as well as other injuries. The pillion
rider, who was the wife of the deceased, was also injured in the said
accident. The driver of the car did not stop and he sped away. The injured
were taken to Civil Hospital, Rupnagar from where Gurmeet Singh (since
deceased) was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he succumbed to his
injuries on the next date i.e. 06.12.2021. On the basis of the statement of Ajit
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -3-
Singh, FIR No.92 dated 06.12.2021 under Section 279, 304-A, 427, 337
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Singh
Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar. Claim petition was preferred by the
claimants. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleading of the parties, awarded
the following compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.71,013/-
2 Annual income [Rs.71,013/- x 12] = Rs.8,52,156/-
3 Income Tax [Rs.8,52,156/- - Rs.80,000/-] =
Rs.7,72,156/-
4 Future prospects 15% [Rs.7,72,156/- + Rs.1,15,823/-] =
Rs.8,87,979/-
5 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.8,87,979/- - Rs.2,21,995/-] =
Rs.6,65,984/-
6 Multiplier of 11 [Rs.6,65,984/- x 11] = Rs.73,25,824/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
8 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
9 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
10 Total Compensation Rs.73,95,824/-
Interest 7% per annum
8. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred
the present appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would
contend that the present was a hit and run case and that the number of the
vehicle was introduced in collusion with the driver and owner of the vehicle
involved. It is further the contention that the FIR was registered on the next
day and that in the criminal case the prosecution witnesses have not
supported the prosecution version.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -4-
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents No.1
to 4 would contend that in the present case the wife of the deceased, namely,
Kamlesh Kaur had stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She was an eye-
witness to the said accident and after being subjected to lengthy cross-
examination nothing could be elicited. It is further the contention of the
learned counsel for the claimant-respondents No.1 to 4 that RW-2 i.e. HC
Sandeep Kumar also stepped into the witness box and stated that information
regarding the accident was received at the Police Station on 05.12.2021
itself. The FIR was recorded on the statement of Ajit Singh son of Sohan
Singh against an unknown person driving car bearing registration No.HR-
01-AD-7032. It is further the contention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & Anr. [(2020) 13 SCC 486] has held that 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.
11. Heard.
12. In the present case the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that it was a hit and run case and that the
vehicle was involved at a later stage since it was insured deserves to be
rejected. HC Sandeep Kumar, a witness produced by the respondents
themselves, stepped into the witness box as RW-2 and clearly stated that the
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -5-
information of the accident was received at the Police Station on 05.12.2021
and that the FIR was recorded against an unknown person, however, the car
was stated to be bearing registration No.HR-01-AD-7032. Hence, the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that
the car number was introduced later on cannot be accepted. Still further, the
wife of the deceased, namely, Kamlesh Kaur who was riding as a pillion
rider along with the deceased, stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She
was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing could be elicited in
the cross-examination to even remotely suggest that the present was a hit
and run case and that the offending vehicle was introduced later.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & Ors.
(supra) has 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
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -6-
all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal
cases."
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 :
"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
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -7-
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 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."
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 judgment acquitting a driver
would have no relevance in a case before the Tribunal. The
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:061649
109 FAO-1208-2024 (O&M) -8-
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."
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".
14. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the fact that the wife of the deceased who was pillon riding the
motorcycle had stepped into the witness box and despite lengthy cross
examination her testimony could not be shaken, this Court finds no merit in
the present appeal. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
03.05.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
