Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GURDHIAN SINGH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdhian Singh & Ors. - FAO-4785-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12120 (7 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

F.A.O. No.4785 of 2006

Date of decision: 14.12.2006

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

---Appellant.

Vs.

Gurdhian Singh and others.

---Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate

for the appellant.

-----

ORDER:

This order will dispose of FAO Nos.4785 and 4786 of 2006 as both the appeals arise out of the same award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Gurmeet Kaur and others preferred a claim petition on account of death of Mewa Singh, who along with Gurdhian Singh was going from Pehowa to Cheeka by a motor cycle on 2.3.2005 at 7.30 P.M. He was hit by a truck bearing No.HR-63-3909 which was being driven by Palwinder Singh. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

Gurdhian Singh filed a claim petition on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The petition was contested by the driver, owner as well as the insurance company.

Following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident resulting into death of Mewa Singh and injuries to Gurdhian Singh took place on 2.3.2005 on 3909 by respondent no.1? OPP.

F.A.O. No.4785 of 2006

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether drivers of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the truck in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the date of accident? OPR.

4. Relief." The Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that the death of Mewa Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver of the truck. Similarly, injuries were suffered by Gurdhian Singh on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck. Reference was, inter- alia, made to the evidence of PW1 Rai Singh, the author of the FIR, Exh.P1; PW2 Gurdhian Singh, injured-claimant, who was on the motor cycle being driven by the deceased Mewa Singh; Exh. P2, the site plan on record; PW3 Gurmeet Kaur widow of the deceased Mewa Singh, who proved the income of the deceased and relationship to the claimants and Exh.P3, the post-mortem report. The Tribunal held that the deceased was an agriculturist and was running a dairy and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd of

the earnings for his own expenses, dependency of the claimants was worked out to Rs.2,000/- per month. The deceased was 35 years of age and by applying the multiplier of 16, compensation for death was worked out at Rs.4,04,000/-, after adding transportation charges and loss of consortium.

Injured was held entitled to Rs.82,600/- out of which, sum of Rs.76,400/- was towards medical expenses, 5,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,200/- for special diet.

Only contention raised by learned counsel for the insurance company is that the driving licence was fake. This plea has been duly considered by the Tribunal and it was found that Onkar Nath Sharma, Clerk, who had given the report which was relied upon, was habitual of issuing falsle Pag

e

num

F.A.O. No.4785 of 2006

reports and on account of which, he was retired compulsorily. The report Exh.

R2 given by the Onkar Nath Sharam, Clerk was, thus, disbelieved.

The Tribunal held that the driver had the driving lecence Exh.R1, photocopy of which was duly proved and the licence had been renewed till 25.09.2005 and was, thus, in operation on the date of accident. Ownership of the vehicle was also duly proved, apart from insurance policy.

After considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no breach of insurance policy and that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving and hold that the quantum of compensation fixed is not excessive.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

JUDGE

December 14, 2006 (MAHESH GROVER)

ashwani JUDGE

Pag

e

num


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.