Punjab-Haryana High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gopal Singh And Ors on 31 January, 2025
FAO-477-2025 (O&M) Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
118 FAO-477-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.01.2025
Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Gopal Singh and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-1536-CII-2025
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act is for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly
supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed
and the delay of 62 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
FAO-477-2025 (O&M)
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company laying challenge to the Award dated 13.08.2024 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to
as "the Tribunal") whereby the claim petition bearing MACP No. 76
dated 08.09.2021 filed by the injured-claimant/respondent No.1 herein,
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act"), has been allowed; and the appellant has been directed to pay
a compensation of Rs.10,45,629/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on
the basis of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced
before it, concluded that the claimant/respondent No.1 herein had
suffered injuries in a Motor Vehicular Accident that took place on
12.02.2021 at about 06:00 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of
the Tractor bearing registration No.HR-50H-4545 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the offending vehicle') by respondent No.2; owned by respondent
No.3, and insured by the appellant. The appellant and respondents No. 2
and 3/driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle, were held
jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
assails the impugned Award dated 13.08.2024 on the ground that the
offending vehicle was a planted vehicle. It is submitted that the
respondents No. 2 and 3/driver and owner respectively of the offending
vehicle, herein are the uncles of the claimant. The said respondents No.
2 and 3 chose not to contest the claim and were proceeded against
exparte before the learned Tribunal. Even the FIR No. 69 dated
12.03.2021 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Police
Station Hodal after a delay of 29 days (Ex.P3) by Satbir (complainant)
brother of the claimant against the uncles of the claimant. Thus, the
offending vehicle was planted by the claimant and the accused persons
in connivance with each other, with a view to get compensation from
the appellant. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned award be set
aside.
4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the case file in great detail.
6. Perusal of the record of the case shows that the
learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.10,45,629/- keeping in
view the fact that prior to accident, the injured-claimant/respondent No.1
herein, was working as Engineer in Foam Pack India Private Limited and
drawing a salary of Rs.13,594/- per month. The accident took place on
12.02.2021 at about 6:00 a.m. when the claimant was going for his job on
his motorcycle Delux bearing registration No. HR-50F-6784. The
complainant (Satbir) and his cousin brother were following behind the
claimant. FIR No. 69 dated 12.03.2021 (Ex.P3) was registered on the basis
of statement made by eyewitness Satbir.
7. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the
offending vehicle was a planted vehicle, is without merit as admittedly,
above said FIR No. 69 dated 12.03.2021 was registered under Sections
279, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station Hodal by Satbir (complainant)
brother of the claimant against the accused-respondents no.2 and 3 in
which they are facing trial. It is further established on record that due to
the accident in question, the claimant had suffered serious head injury
including multiple fractures, as borne out from the MLR dated 12.02.2021
(Ex.P15) and the discharge summary dated 22.02.2021 (Ex.P16). In the
accident, the claimant has suffered 20% disability on his right lower limb
on account of stiffness of right knee. In such a situation, it would be
unthinkable that the claimant would file a false claim merely to get
compensation. The seriousness of the injuries suffered by the claimant
also explain the delay of 29 days in registration of the FIR. As such, there
was no ground to disbelieve the version set forth by the claimant. In this
regard, the following findings recorded by learned Tribunal in para 14, are
relevant:-
"Now coming to the aspect of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1, claimant
himself appeared as PW-1 and tendered his duly sworn
affidavit Ex.PW-1/A whereby he testified the manner of
sustaining injuries in a road side accident, caused by
respondent no.1 on 12.02.2021, while driving the offending
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He was cross-
examined at length, but credit of his testimony could not be
shattered in any manner particularly on the point of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
His oral version also stands corroborated from the
documentary evidence in the shape of FIR (Ex.P3) attached
with the file which was got lodged by his elder brother Satvir
mentioning the registration number of the offending vehicle.
Further perusal of final report under section 173 of
Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-19) reveals that respondent no.1 is facing trial for
causing the accident which is subject matter of the present
petition. It is well settled that where the driver is facing
criminal trial for causing the accident, it is always safe to
conclude that he was negligent. Reliance in this regard can be
placed upon judgment titled as Girdhari Lal Versus Radhey
Shyam, 1993 (2) RCR 109 (P&H), where similar observations
were made by the Hon'ble Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court.
That apart, nothing on record suggests that the
Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the offending
vehicle's driver without conducting a proper investigation. It is
also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case
just like that. The documents of final report having some
probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can
be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of
probable versions as the proceedings under the M.V. Act being
summary in nature."
8. Keeping in view the above facts, the learned Tribunal granted
compensation in the following manner: -
Sr. Head under which amount awarded Amount
No.
1. Compensation on account of expenditure Rs.8,72,659/-
incurred on medicine and treatment.
2. Compensation on account of loss of Rs.66,970/-
income.
3. Compensation on account of pain and Rs.30,000/-
sufferings.
4. Compensation on account of Rs.35,000/-
hospitalization, attendant, transportation,
special diet etc.
5. Compensation on account of 20% Rs.40,000/-
disability
Total Rs.10,45,629/-
9. From the above facts, it is clear that the sole argument raised
on behalf of the appellant is misconceived and baseless. Therefore, the
impugned Award does not warrant the interference of this Court.
10. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
11. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
31.01.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
