Cholamandiam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd v. Ram Shankar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (1) FAO-1406-2018 (O&M)

Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2023

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.

...Appellant

Versus

Ram Shankar and others

...Respondents

(2) FAO-1763-2018 (O&M) Ram Shankar ...Appellant

Versus

Gurdat Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN H.S. MADAAN , J.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner/claimant Ram Shankar, aged about 18 years had brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against respondents i.e. Gurdat Singh-driver, Surender Kumar owner and Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.-insurer of truck bearing registration No.HR-57A-7667 (for brevity 'offending truck') claiming

compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.

2.

As per case of petitioner/claimant, on 27.09.2015, he was pillion riding Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.CH14(T) 1886 being driven by Tara son of Zahir Hussain going from Bapu Dham Colony towards Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The scooter was being driven on its correct left hand side at a normal speed. At about 10.30 PM, when they had reached near gate No.4 of Police Line, Sector 26, Chandigarh, in the meanwhile, a rehri came in front of the scooter all of sudden, hitting the scooter. Resultantly, both the riders of the scooter including the claimant fell on left hand side of the road. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 Gurdat Singh driving the offending truck at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter, dragging it to a considerable distance.

Ultimately, the tyre of the truck passed over the claimant causing multiple injuries to him. His left leg was crushed and it had to be amputated from left hip. The report regarding the accident was given to the police. The claimant was hospitalized. According to the claimant, he had spent a sum of Rs.2 lacs on his treatment after the accident. He was very experienced painter, however, on account of amputation of his left leg, he has become totally disabled to do the work of painting and polishing. He claimed compensation of Rs.50 lacs with interest and costs from all the three respondents. 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 in separate written statements filed by them had raised various legal objections. They denied that any such accident had taken place on 27.09.2015 with the offending truck being driven by respondent No.1 Gurdat Singh. In the end they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

In the written statement filed by respondent No.3-insurance company, it also raised various preliminary objections to wit that the claim petition was not maintainable; petition was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the accident in question had taken place due to sole negligence of driver of the scooter ; answering respondent further took up objections that the truck driver was not holding a valid license and truck was not having a valid road permit; further the truck was being driven in violation of terms & conditions of insurance policy; the truck was not involved in the accident at all; refuting the remaining assertions, such respondent also craved for dismissal of the claim petition.

5.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the tribunal:-

1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the injuries on the person of Ram Shankar, has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.HR57A-7667 by respondent No.1? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having effective and valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3.

4. Whether there was no valid and effective route permit of the vehicle at the time of accident? OPR-3

5. 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, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents holding that the accident in which petitioner/claimant had suffered injuries had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No.1 Gurdat Singh; issue No.2 was decided holding that the claimant was entitled to get compensation of Rs.27,92,593/- as per details below:- Issues No.3 and 4 were decided against respondent No.3. Resultantly, vide award dated 07.11.2017, the claim petition was accepted and compensation of Rs.27,92,593/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a was awarded to the claimant payable by all the three respondents jointly and

severally. It was directed that respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending truck shall indemnify the amount of compensation. 7.

This award left the claimant as well as respondent No.3insurance company aggrieved and both of them have filed separate appeals which are being disposed of, vide a single judgment since they arise out of the same accident.

8.

9.

27,92,593/- which is highly excessive and unseasonable. The amount is reduced to Rs. 11,29,032/-. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,593/- to claimant towards medical expenses which is found to be proper and appropriate. Towards compensation on account of admission in hospital and pain and suffering, another sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded which cannot be said to be on higher side. Similarly the expenses awarded towards transportation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, for nutritious diet to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, attendant charges as Rs.25,000/- need not be interfered. 15.

However, the tribunal missed granting compensation under various other heads i.e. loss of future amenities and happiness. A sum of Rs.1 lakh is awarded to the claimant under that head, towards future medical expenses including getting an artificial leg etc., a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs is awarded to him. His marital prospects have been certainly affected on account of amputation of his left leg, a sum of Rs.3 lacs is awarded to him in that regard. Thus the total compensation comes out to Rs.18,79,625/-.

16.

27,92,593/-. Though, the claimant has filed appeal seeking enhancement of that compensation but in view of the discussion above since the compensation awarded has

been reduced, there is no occasion to enhance the same. 17.