(O&M) National Ins. Co. Ltd vs Shalini Bindlish & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 19830 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) National Ins. Co. Ltd vs Shalini Bindlish & Ors on 8 November, 2024

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898
FAO-493-2005(O&M)
        2005(O&M) and
FAO-2784-2004(O&M
         2004(O&M)                             1

496
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                                         FAO-493-2005(O&M)
                                                                 2005(O&M)

National Insurance Company                                    . . . . Appellant
                                        Vs.

Shalini Bindlish and others                                   . . . . Respondents

                                                       FAO-2784-2004(O&M)
                                                                2004(O&M)

Shalini Bindlish and others                                   . . . . Appellants
                                        Vs.

Narinder Singh and others                                     . . . . Respondents

                                              Date of Decision: 08.11.2024

                                       ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                                       ****

Present:    Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate
            Mr
            for the appellant (in FAO-493-2005).
                                  FAO     2005).

            Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
            for respondents No. 1 to 4 (in FAO
                                           FAO-493-2005)
            for appellants (in FAO-2784-2004).
                               FAO        2004).
        ****
SANJAY VASHISTH,
       VASHISTH J.(Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals i.e.

2005(O&M) filed by respondent/Insurance Co. and FAO-2784-- FAO-493-2005(O&M)

appellants/claimants, as both appeals are inter 2004(O&M) filed by the appellants/claimants

connected, and have arisen out of the same and common order.

2. Claimants in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') in MACT case No. 292 of

16.12.1999/19.07.1999 prayed for the monetary compensation on account of

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

accidental death of one Sanjay Bindlish. The proceedings of the claim

petitions were finally culminated in award date dated 20.03.2004, as passed by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'learned MACT').

Learned Tribunal awarded the compen compensation amount of Rs.5,88,000/--

alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim

petition till its actual payment to the claimants.

Respondents No. 1 to 3 (Driver, owner and Insurance Company) were

held liable jointly and severally. That's That's why, there are two appeals before this

Court. FAO-2784 2784-2004 2004 is for enhancement of compensation amount and

FAO-493-2005 2005 has been filed by the National Insurance Company,

challenging the award.

3. Factual aspects narrated in the claim petition are that on

19.06.1998,Sanjay Sanjay Bindlish (since deceased) met with an accident on the

diving road of Sector 44 and 51, Chandigarh with some car, which after

hitting him, ran away. One Chander Mohan Goel, who lodged the FIR about

the accident, was informed about this accident on telephone by Rajiv Rajiv,, who

was brother of deceased-Sanjay deceased Sanjay Bindlish. Later, Sanjay Bindlish was

removed to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh in police van and was further

referred to PGI.

Number of the offending car was given on telephone as DL DL-2C, 2C,

which was Maruti Esteem Car. Somebody informed the complainant complainant--

Chander Mohan Goel outside the Blook Bank at PGI PGI, that they have seen

Maruti Esteem Car of the same number and description description, moving around PGI

on 2-3 3 occasions. The car was later on found to be Maruit-800 and not Marutii

Esteem. At the time of death, Sanjay Bindlish was aged 34 years and he was

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

a business Managing Director of MSSB MSSB Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh having

monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-

Rs.6,5 in addition to other perks and benefits like

conveyance and house rent allowances.

4. Further pleaded that Sanjay Bindlish was driving his scooter on the

divding road of Section-44 Section 44 and 51, Chandigarh and was going to his

residence, when he met with the accident. It is later on that Marutic Car

bearing registration No. DL-6CD-6776,driven DL riven and owned by respondents no.

1 and 2 and insured by respondent No.3, was found involved in the said

accident.

5. Respondents contested the claim petition broadly by pleading th that at the

said car was not involved in any such uch accident.

6. After pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following four

issues:

" Whether Sanjay Bindlish died in Motor Vehicle accident on "1.

19.06.1998 as alleged in the claim petition petition, if so its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, being

legal representatives of Sanjay Bindlish Bindlish, if so how much?

3. Whether the driver of the alleged Maruti Car was not

holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of

accident? OPR-3

4 Relief."

4.

7. While deciding issue No.1, learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion

that factum of accident involving the offending vehicle is well established as

per the statements statement of witnesses and the registration of the criminal case i.e.

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

FIR No.115 dated 20.06.1998 under Section 279 and 304 304-A A IPC, at Police

Station South,, Chandigarh.

8. For the purpose of confirmation of the statement and other piece of

evidence available on record, learned Tribunal relied upon the CFSL report

(Ex. P9) which proves that Car bearing registration No. DL DL-6CD-6776 6776 was

involved in the accident with Scooter bearing registra registration No. CH01-0091.

0091.

Relevant findings recorded by Ld. Tribunal in this regard is reproduced

hereunder:

"

"FIR Ex. P-7 7 was lodged on the statement of Chander Mohan

Goel. The ld. Counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance upon Goel.

DDR No.61 dated 19.698 Ex. RW1/A. It has recorded that the

scooterist skidded and DDR was based on the statement of Raja

Ram as recorded in this regard. Raja Ram has not been

examined by the contesting contesting respondent before this Tribunal. DR

Ex. RW1/A is without any consequence because FIR Ex.PZ was

recorded about this accident. Moreover, it has appeared in the

statement of PW2 Balwinder Singh that he appeared as a

witness before the judicial magistrat magistrate, e, Chandigarh, PW3

Sulakshna Rohilla, Ahlmad has proved on the recorded that

Narinder Singh (respondent NO.1 in this case) has been facing

criminal trial for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A A

IPC in case FIR No.115 dated 20.06.1998 of Police Sta Station, tion,

South, Chandigarh. Ex.P.9 is CFSL Report providing that Car

No.DL No.DL-6CD-6776 6776 was involved in the accident with Scooter No.

CH CH-01-0091.

0091. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for respondent

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

No.3 Insurance Company is that statement of PWZ Balwinder

Singh cannot cannot be taken into account, as laid down in Husna Vs.

State of Punjab, reported in 1996 (a) Recent Criminal Reports

Page 657 of the Apex Court. This authority is distinguishable

from the facts of the case in hand. Moreover, FIR in this case

was not lodged by by PW2 Balwinder Singh but was lodged by one

Chander Mohan Goel. PW2-Balwinder PW2 Balwinder Singh has not been

confronted with his previous statement given before the Judicial

Magistrate Chandigarh by the contesting respondent in this

case to trot out the inconsistenc inconsistence therein. CFSL report Ex. P-9

has proved the involvement of the offending car with the

offended scooter in the accident of this case. No contrary

evidence has been led on the record by respondent No.3. DDR

Ex. RW1/A is unable to demolish the statement of PW2

Balwinder Singh, who has seen the accident with his own eyes

and has proved rash and negligent driving of the offending car.

Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the post

mortem report Ex.PB the Tribunal has reached the conclusion

that the the claimants have proved on the record that Sanjay

Bindlish died on 19.6.98 on account of rash and negligent

driving by the driver i.e. respondent no.1 of Maruti Car No. DL DL--

6CD 6776. Issue No.1 decided in favour of the claimants 6CD-6776.

accordingly.

accordingly."

9. While addressing addressing arguments before this Court with regard to issue

No.1, Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate representing National Insurance Company

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

in FAO-493-2005 2005 submits that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal in

reaching to the conclusion that the accident in questio question is proved, is not

conclusive as same is solely based upon the CFSL report report.. He also submits

that there is no corroborative evidence to the said aspect. Dealing with the

said submission and more so, without pointing out any substantial material to

enable this his Court to discard the CFSL report (Ex. P9) P9), it would not be

possible to deviate from the view point already taken by the learned Tribunal.

Moreover, the scientific evidence canno cannot be discarded in present case

as same is corroborated with the oral evide evidence also, led by the claimants

before the Tribunal. It It is also not disputed by the counsel for the Insurance

Company that the proceedings in such claim petitions do not require strict

proof i.e. beyond the shadow of doubt and also for the purpose of

enhancement ement of the claim.

Thus, from the summary proceedings, proceedings it is well established on record

that the offending vehicle in question is car bearing registration no no. DL-6CD--

6776,, and rash and negligent driving of its driver has resulted into causing

death of Sanjay Bindlish. Therefore, reasons assigned by learned Tribunal

while deciding issue No.1, No.1 are hereby confirmed, aand appeal bearing no.

FAO-493-2005 2005 is hereby dismissed.

10. Now, taking up appeal bearing no FAO-2784-2004 regarding

enhancement of compensation amount preferred by the appellants/claimants.

Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate representing respondent/Insurance

Company, mpany, informs that awarded compensation amount was initially

mentioned as Rs.6,16,000/-in Rs.6,16,000/ in the Award. However, on moving of an

application ation , this amount was subsequently rectified by the learned Tribunal

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

vide its order dated 06.10.2004, 06.10.2004 to Rs.5,88,000/ Rs.5,88,000/-.Said aid fact is not disputed by

the appellants.

11. Once the appeal filed by the Insurance company has been dismissed,

the adequate/just amount of compensation is to be considered and calculated

in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Sangtari Muleem v.

Karnail Singh, (FAO No. 2538 of 2006, D/d. 07.07.2023) : Law Finder

2270482 which is in consonance with the settled propo Doc Id # 2270482, proposition sition of law

laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009:Law finder Doc ID

#918174 and per Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

12. From Income Tax Returns Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 Ex.P4,it ,it is well established that

deceased was getting Rs.6,500/-per Rs.6,500/ per month. As per post mortem report, it

stands established that deceased was aged 34 years at the time of accident

and as per Pranay Sethi's Set case (supra), addition of 440%, 0%, on the count of

'future prospects' has to be made and thus total amount of earning comes to

be Rs. 6,500/--+ 2,600/- (40% of Rs.6,500/-)=Rs.

)=Rs. 9,100/- per month.

13. Out of the same, keeping in view the number of dependents i.e. widow,

mother and two children, 1/4th is to be deducted on account of 'personal

expenses', which comes out to be Rs.2,275 Rs.2,275/- and the reamining amount

works out to be Rs.6,825/-

Rs. per month and annual comes to be Rs.

Rs.81,900/-..

Considering the age of the deceased as per Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs

121,, the appropriate Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121

multiplier to be applied in the present present case is '16 '16'' and after, so applying this

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to be Rs. 66,825/- X 16 =

Rs.13,10,400 /-.

14. Claimants are also entitled for Rs. 25,000/ 25,000/- as compensation under the

head of funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/-

                             Rs.20,      towards loss of estate
                                                         estate. Loss of

consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.48,400/ Rs.48,400/- each to the all four

claimants in the instant appeal.

15. For the sake of convenience, amount of compensation assessed and

calculated by this Court is produced below in a tabular form:

Sr. No. HEADS Compensation awarded by the

High Court

1. Income Rs.

Rs.6,500 /-

2. Future Prospects 40% 0%

3. Deduction towards 1/44th

personal expenses

4. Total Annual Income Rs.

Rs.81,900/-

6. Loss of Dependency Rs.13,10,400/ Rs.13,10,400/-

7. Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/ Rs.25,000/-

8. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/ Rs.20,000/-

9. Loss of Spousal Rs. 48,400 /-

Consortium

10. Loss of Parental Rs.

Rs.96,800 /-(Rs. 48,400 X 2)

Consortium

11. Loss of filial Rs. 48,400/ 48,400/-

8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

Consortium

12. Total Compensation to Rs.1 Rs.15,49,000/-

be Paid

16. Thus, keeping in view the aims and object of the beneficial legislation

of providing relief to the victims or their families, the total compensation

payable to the appellants (petitioners/claimants) is enhanced to

Rs.15,49,000/ ( Rupees fifteen Lacs and forty Rs.15,49,000/- forty-nine thousand only).

17. The awarded compensation shall be paid to the claimants within a

period of three months from the date of this order order, along with interest at 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment of

compensation to the appellants /claimants, with the same terms, which have

been mentioned by Ld. Tribunal.

It is further clarified that in case compensation compensation amount due to be paid

as on date is not paid within aforementioned stipulated period, same shall be

payable to the claimants along with applicable rate of interest @9%p.a.

And, in case any further delay is caused beyond six months from

today, compensation mpensation amount payable as on date would be paid to the

claimants along with applicable rate of interest @12%p.a from the date of

filing claim application till its realization.

18. Needless to mention that out of the total payable compensation

amount, t, already paid amount (if any) in compliance to the impugned award

would be adjusted.

9 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147898 FAO-493-2005(O&M) 2005(O&M) and FAO-2784-2004(O&M

Therefore, by partly modifying the award, appeal is allowed with

the terms indicated here-above.

here

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected

case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 08,, 2024 rashmi

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

10 of 10