Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh And Others on 3 October, 2013
F.A.O. No. 4765 of 2013 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 4765 of 2013 [O&M]
Date of Decision: October 3rd, 2013
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
.... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh 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. T.K.Joshi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Delay of 123 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit. Main Appeal This is an appeal brought by Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer against the award dated 16.1.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which a sum of ` 9,34,976/- is allowed as compensation to the claimants on the death of Manoj Kumar.
The award is challenged on two grounds. The first is that the driver of the offending vehicle was drunk and as it is a case of drunken Prakash Som 2013.10.08 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 4765 of 2013 2 ..
driving, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The second ground is that 30% increase has been allowed to the income, though, the deceased had not been in a permanent employment.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle was drunk is based on the statement of Sanjay [PW-4], an eye-witness of the accident who has stated that it was presumed by him that a smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of driver Pawan Kumar. This statement is not precise enough to reach a finding that Pawan Kumar was drunk while driving. Sanjay could not even say that Pawan Kumar was smelling of alcohol. He only says that he presumed him to be smelling of alcohol. It may have been a misconception on his part.
For reaching a finding of drunken driving, the evidence required is much more than this. So, in the absence of any evidence, the finding sought to be arrived at by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be arrived at.
The concept of addition to be made to the income on account of future prospects originated in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 where the requirement was that the victim should be in permanent job. After this pronouncement, this principle has been diluted in various judgments and finally in Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 ACJ 1403, the addition to the income of the victim in the name of future prospects is allowed even in case of self employed and people working on fixed wages. So, the requirement of being in permanent job for the victim to apply the principle is no longer there.
Prakash Som 2013.10.08 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 4765 of 2013 3
..
Hence, finding no substance in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find that the impugned award calls for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is held to have no merit and the same is dismissed in limine (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 3rd, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.10.08 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document