High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jai Ram Sah v. Mansha Singh & Ors - FAO-M-1562-1994  RD-P&H 9511 (30 October 2006)
F.A.O.No. 1562 of 1994
Decided on Nov 01,2006.
Jai Ram Sah -- Appellant
Mansha Singh and others --Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik,Advocate,for the appellant Mr.Rakesh Nagpal,Advocate,for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.Inderjit Sharma,Advocate,for respondent Nos . 3 and 5.
Mr.Hemant Bassi,Advocate,for respondent
Pritam Pal J:(Oral)
This appeal, by Jai Ram Sah, injured/claimant, is against the award dated June 01,1994, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby a total compensation of Rs 167,600/- was granted together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation.
However, the aforesaid amount of award was reduced to 50%, observing that no claim has been sought against the owner and insurer of the canter bearing No. CHOI D-1489.
Without going into the details, suffice it to say that the learned Tribunal had held that both the vehicles i.e Canter No. CHOI-D- 1489 and Truck No. PAT-8035 were involved in the accident and as such, Drivers of both the vehicles were held liable equally for causing the accident in question. It is also an admitted fact that both the vehicles were duly insured with insurance companies i.e New India Assurance Company Ltd-respondent No.3 and United India Insurance Company Ltd- respondent No.5, respectively.
Reason given for reducing the aforesaid amount of compensation to 50% has been dealt-with in para 39 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-
" Since Jaswant Singh, deceased, has also been held negligent for causing this accident equally and the applicant has not claimed any compensation from the owner and insurer of Canter No. CH- O1-D-1489, so the applicant would be entitled to get 50% compensation of the total amount awarded, that is, Rs.83,800. Ordered accordingly".
The contention of counsel for the claimant/appellant is that finding of the Tribunal that no compensation was sought from the owner and insurer of the Canter is erroneous and against the facts of the claim petition. His only contention is that in fact, both the owners and Insurance Company of the Canter,were duly arrayed as respondents before the Claim Tribunal . Not only that a specific prayer was also made for awarding compensation against all the respondents jointly and severally.
A perusal of the claim petition Annexure P-1 indicates that aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct. This fact has also not been disputed by counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 5, who are insurers of the offending vehicles respectively , whose drivers have been held equally liable for causing the accident.
Faced with this admitted situation, the aforesaid point raised by learned counsel for the appellant goes unrebutted. So far as the point of enhancement of compensation is concerned, that merits no credence inasmuch as a perusal of the evidence and other material placed on the file does not justify any enhancement in the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal .
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the finding of the Tribunal given in para 39 of the impugned award, is set aside and it is held that the appellant shall also be entitled to recover the remaining 50% amount of compensation i.e. Rs.83,800/- from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 jointly and severally together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation.
Nov 01,2006, (Pritam Pal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.