Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus HARBHAJAN SINGH ALIAS PIRTHI SINGH AND O

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Harbhajan Singh alias Pirthi Singh and o - FAO-4077-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10293 (10 November 2006)

FAO No.4077 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: 9.10.2006

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

...Appellant

versus

Harbhajan Singh alias Pirthi Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh.
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover.

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate

for the appellant.

UMA NATH SINGH, J. (ORAL)

This FAO arises out of an award dated 2.5.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rup Nagar, in MACT Case No.63 of 9.6.2004, awarding a sum of Rs.3,69,000/- in death case of a young motor mechanic of 21 years.

Learned counsel at the outset submitted that the appellant was granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') to contest the case on merits. Learned counsel raised two fold submissions, namely, (i) that the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle, and (ii) once there was a claim that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, a petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable.

We have carefully considered both the submissions.

Admittedly, the deceased was driving a scooter and when he applied the brake on jumping of a cattle before the vehicle on the road, the brake failed and the vehicle struck against a poplar tree. As a result, he died. Under the FAO No.4077 of 2006 2

circumstances, he cannot be said to be negligent in driving the vehicle. The accident occurred due to the circumstances beyond his control. Besides, the DDR contained a similar narration of facts. Hence, the first argument of learned counsel does not find favour with the Court. As regards the second argument, since the Tribunal has, on appreciation of evidence, assessed the income below Rs.40,000/- per annum, the claim petition under Section 163- A of the Act was maintainable.

Accordingly, the FAO is dismissed in limine.

( UMA NATH SINGH )

JUDGE

October 9, 2006 ( MAHESH GROVER )

pk JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.