Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M;)The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Urmila Devi And Others on 19 November, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 2125 of 1997
Date of Decision: 19.11.2014
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
....Appellant.
Versus
Urmila Devi and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for
Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 2125 and 2126 of 1997 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, both arise from one and the same award and identical facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from FAO No. 2125 of 1997.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal").
3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. On 16.6.1995, Labh Singh with Ramesh Chand on the pillion, driving his Moped was hit by a car GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -2- bearing registration No. CH-01-D-0036 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, coming from the side of Rajpura on G.T. Road near Gurudwara Sahib Kahniya in the area of village Darhiya. As a result thereof, Labh Singh and Ramesh Chand received multiple serious injuries and died at the spot. The said accident was witnessed by Mansa Ram who was on his Moped and was little behind the Moped of Labh Singh. The claimants being the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Chand filed a claim petition for compensation. The other claim petition had been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Labh Singh. Upon notice, the owner and driver of the offending car did not contest the petition and were proceeded against exparte whereas the insurer of the car contested the petition by filing a written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised in the written statement. The Insurance Company tried to wriggle out of its liability pleading that no information of the accident was given by the insured. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
i) Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1? OPP
ii) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP
iii) Relief.
4. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as documentary GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -3- evidence led by the parties, decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle who managed to escape from the spot. Under issue No.2, the claimants were held entitled to a sum of ` 3,84,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the insured and the insurer of the offending vehicle. Similar amount was awarded in the connected claim petition. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 31.3.1997 allowed both the claim petitions holding the claimants entitled to ` 3,84,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition to be paid jointly and severally by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company with whom the said vehicle was issued. Further, it was directed that if the payment was not made within three months from the date of the award, the interest at the rate of 18% would be payable by them. Hence, the present appeals by the Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no accident with the vehicle insured had taken place. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding on issue No.1 has been recorded on the basis of statement of PW3 Mansa Ram whereas if the statement was to be read in totality, the aforesaid conclusion could not have been arrived at by the Tribunal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. The Insurance Company in the written statement had made efforts to wriggle out of its liability by pleading that no information of the accident was given by the insured and also that the offending car was being driven without any valid driving licence. Moreover, a perusal of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -4- written statement filed by the Insurance Company shows that there is no plea taken by it therein that car No. CH-01D-0036 was never involved in the present vehicular accident. There was categorical statement of PW3 Mansa Ram eye witness about identity of the car as also of the driver. He had also mentioned about other eye witnesses. The relevant portion of deposition of PW3 Mansa Ram reads thus:-
"The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Raj Kumar also apologized to me and promised that his car is insured and will help in settlement of compensation. The Sewadars of Gurdwara and Chanan Singh Sarpanch were also present."
8. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of driver-cum-owner of the offending car who managed to escape from the spot. The relevant findings under issue No.1 read thus:-
"Mansa Ram (PW3) is the eye witness. He was on his Moped and was following the Moped driven by Labh Singh. They were going towards Rajpura. He is categorical that Labh Singh was driving his Moped slowly and on his correct side of the road and that a car bearing no. CH-01-D-0036 driven by respondent no.1 came at a very fast and rash speed from Rajpura side and hit the Luna (Moped) driven by Labh Singh causing multiple injuries to them. They died at the spot.
14. FIR in this case is Ex.RW2/1 which gives vivid GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.01.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -5- detail of the accident. There is categorical unassailed deposition made by Mansa Ram (PW3) that the car was being driven by respondent no.1. Authorship of this accident is clearly and strongly attributed to the driver (respondent no.1) of the car.
15. Ld. counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that FIR does not mention the number of the car or name of the driver. The record of the Police i.e. Ex.PW2/2 shows that the case was filed as untraced. However, reports of investigators (Ex.RW2/7) proved by S.P. Sharma (RW1) is categorical that owner-cum- driver of the car namely Raj Kumar was not available at the given address. He had rented out his Industrial Shed i.e. 36, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh and was not found available despite visits made by the Investigator.
16. There is categorical statement of Mansa Ram about identity of the car as also of the driver. He has also mentioned about other eye witnesses. Relevant portion of his deposition is as under:-
"The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Raj Kumar also apologized to me and promised that his car is insured and will help in settlement of compensation. The Sewadars of Gurdwara and Chanan Singh Sarpanch were also present."GURBACHAN SINGH
2015.01.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -6-
17. He has not been questioned even in whispers on this count.
18. If the Insurance Company was true in its defence, investigating officer of the case could have been brought in the witness box to ascertain as to why the respondent was arrested when his whereabouts and address was available and eye witness had also been known. The very fact that the respondent is neither available at his work place nor at his residence makes it clear that he was trying to avoid participation in the investigations. Argument of the Ld. counsel for the claimants that he is avoiding submission to the legal process, cannot be simply brushed aside. Conduct of the police, in absence of the investigating officer examined by the respondent, cannot be appraised qua the case in hand and report Ex.RW2/1 tendered by respondent no.2 in evidence without examining the investigating officer, is of no consequence.
19. From the totality of circumstances as discussed above, it is held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who managed to escape from the spot."
9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on evidence led by the parties. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court.
GURBACHAN SINGH2015.01.12 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -7-
10. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed.
November 19, 2014 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
GURBACHAN SINGH
2015.01.12 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
FAO No. 2125 of 1997 -8-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2126 of 1997 Date of Decision: 19.11.2014 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
....Appellant.
Versus Smt. Saroj Rani and others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
For orders, see FAO No. 2125 of 1997 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Urmila Devi and others).
November 19, 2014 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
GURBACHAN SINGH
2015.01.12 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh