Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Santosh Devi And Others on 26 September, 2013
F.A.O. No. 3706 of 2013 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 3706 of 2013 [O&M]
Date of Decision: September 26th, 2013
United India Insurance Company Limited
.... Appellant
Versus
Santosh Devi and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited has brought this appeal against the award dated 16.2.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which a claim petition brought by Smt. Santosh Devi and others under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, "the Act"] seeking compensation in a sum of ` 50 lakhs on the death of Dharamvir having occurred in a roadside accident that took place on 9.3.2010 has been allowed in sum of ` 14,27,448/-.
The challenge of the appellant to the award is two-fold. The Prakash Som 2013.10.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 3706 of 2013 2 ..
first is that the financial assistance received by the widow of the deceased from the Government has not been deducted by learned Tribunal from the compensation and second is that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed two driving licences out of which the first was found to be fake and the second was found to have been issued from Nagaland where the driver did not live and so, the same was also presumed to be fake.
The answer to the first submission can be found in a Division Bench judgment of this court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Purnima and others 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 42 where it is laid down that assistance received from the employer on the death of an employee cannot be deducted from the compensation which is payable under the Act.
The second aspect has been beautifully dealt with by learned Tribunal in paragraphs No. 28 and 29 of the award. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that no evidence had been produced on the record to prove that the first driving licence was fake and that the second driving licence was also fake. As no evidence was brought to prove that the driver had two driving licences and that the first one was fake, there was no presumption available to the effect that the driving licence possessed by the driver, a resident of Haryana, issued from Nagaland would be fake. Evidence was required to be led by the insurance company to prove that the said driving licence is fake.
Learned Tribunal has, therefore, been fully justified in his approach to the aforesaid submissions. Therefore, I affirm the findings of learned Tribunal on the aforesaid questions and finding no merit in the Prakash Som 2013.10.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 3706 of 2013 3 ..
appeal, dismiss the same in limine.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.10.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document