L And T General Insurance Company v. Rajbala And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (1) FAO-2758-2020 (O&M)
Date of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023
L & T General Insurance Company now named as HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company ...Appellant
Versus
Rajbala and others
...Respondents
(2) FAO-562-2020 (O&M) Rajbala and others ...Appellants
Versus
Anil Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN H.S. MADAAN , J.
This order of mine shall dispose of above mentioned two appeals being arising out of the same award.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that Smt. Raj Bala aged about 35 years widow, Jyoti aged 09 years minor daughter, Ashish aged 07 years minor son, Sarma Devi, aged 62 years mother and Ran Singh aged 67 years father of Suresh Singh, an unfortunate victim of a road side
accident had brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against respondents i.e. Anil Kumar-driver, Vijay Kumar owner and L&T General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai-insurer of Sonalika tractor bearing registration No.HR16Q-9918 (for brevity 'offending vehicle') claiming compensation. 2.
As per case of petitioners/claimants, on 30.03.2016, Sudesh Singh was going from village Bagot to his village Malkosh in his Alto car bearing registration No.HR-19-C-2474, when he had crossed village Sanjarwas and had reached near a hotel, at about 11.00 pm, then a truck came from opposite side flashing lights as a result of which nothing was visible to Sudesh Singh, as such, he struck his alto car in trolley attached with the offending vehicle which was parked in middle of the road without any parking light indication. The accident was witnessed by one Jasbir son of Chander and Jai Bhagwan son of Sadhu Ram who were going on their motorcycle behind Alto car. Both of them took out Sudesh Singh injured from Alto car and called an ambulance and then he was taken to General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri where the doctors declared him dead. FIR No.
50 dated 31.03.2016 for offences under Sections 283 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Bond Kalan on the basis of statement of Jasbir against unknown driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, during investigation respondent No.1 Anil Kumar was found to be driver of the tractor. He was accordingly arrested in this case.
account of his death, they have been deprived of the earning member. 3.
Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. All the three respondents appeared and contested the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement whereas respondent No.3 came up with a separate written statement. In the joint written statement submitted by respondents No.1 & 2, they denied the allegations in the claim petition contending that even if the compensation was to be granted then respondent No.3-insurance company was liable to pay the same.
4.
Respondent No.3-insurance company in a separate written statement filed by it while contesting the assertions in the claim petition contended that respondents No.1 & 2 had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, respondent No.3 was not liable to pay the compensation.
5.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the tribunal:-
1. Whether the accident in question causing death of Sudesh Singh took place on 30.03.2016, due to rash and negligent driving of Sonalika tractor bearing registration No.HR16Q-9918 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the pleas, taken by the insurance company in its written statement? OPR-3.
4. Relief.
6.
The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing arguments, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Charkhi Dadri (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.08.2019 accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.33,56,500/-; to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. The liability to pay this amount being joint and several of all the three respondents.
7.
Feeling aggrieved by such award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company has approached this Court by way of filing an appeal whereas the claimants have also filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Notice of both the appeals were given to the respective respondents who have put in appearance through counsel. 8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.