Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh And Another vs Avtar Singh And Others on 31 March, 2014
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2021 of 1999 (O&M)
Date of decision:31.03.2014
Amar Singh and another ... Appellants
versus
Avtar Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. T.S. Rai, Advocate,
for Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate,
for the appellants.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The appeal is against dismissal of petition for death of a male, aged 24 years. The accident took place on 08.10.1996 when the deceased was standing on the bridge with his scooter parked next to him. In the meanwhile, a car being driven negligently, struck against the deceased and his scooter. The police did not mention the name and address of driver of offending car. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the car was not involved in the accident and the accident could not have been caused by car. The insurer's plea was that the claim was the result of collusion of the insured with the claimant.
2. In this case, the most crucial aspect is that the driver and owner had filed a written statement admitting to the accident but contending that the deceased was in a drunken state and he had Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.02 16:04 FAO No.2021 of 1999 (O&M) -2- dashed against a car only on account of his negligence. The Tribunal had framed an issue whether there was any collusion between the claimants and the owner. If the driver had admitted to the accident about the involvement of the insured's vehicle, the insurer, who pleads for a case of collusion, must bring to the Tribunal some modicum of evidence that there was a ground to infer collusion. Two aspect are possible: one, if the accident had really taken place involving the insured's vehicle, the driver and owner cannot be expected to show that there was no accident. They were bound to accept the accident. The other side of the coin is even when there was no involvement of the insured's vehicle, the insured can make a false admission that the accident had taken place just to help the claimants. This cannot be done on a mere surmise by the insurer. The Motor Vehicles Act allows for information to be elicited from the owner by the insurer as well as by the police. If the insurer had made an effort to bring the driver or owner to give evidence but they were unwilling to give such evidence, then it is possible to infer a case of collusion. If there was a police version that the accident had not taken place, then it shall be necessary for the insurer to examine the Investigating Officer and bring all the materials before the Tribunal to be brought-forth that enables the police to close the criminal case as a mistake of fact. The person, who pleads collusion, must prove the same. With no materials Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.02 16:04 FAO No.2021 of 1999 (O&M) -3- brought by the insurer about the prospect of collusion, the Tribunal was in error in conjecturing such a case by the only fact that the police had not challaned the driver. If the Investigating Officer had been examined, it should have been possible to elicit how they did not prosecute the case against the driver when the driver was actually admitting the involvement of the vehicle in the court through his written statement. A non-prosecution of the driver could occasion under various circumstances. The non-involvement of the vehicle could be one. The absence of evidence about who was the driver could be another. It was also possible that there was sufficient material to infer that only the injured/deceased was responsible and the driver was not. In the last situation even if the police had not prosecuted the case, there was still a valid ground for a claimant to pursue his case for compensation. The standard of proof for claiming compensation before the Tribunal is different. Criminal negligence is not necessary to be proved before the Tribunal. Under all the circumstances, the dismissal of the petition was erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have known the admission of the driver and owner about the accident and the absence of materials brought by the insurer to infer collusion were sufficient to hold that the claimants were entitled to secure an award on the basis of the materials brought before it.
Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.02 16:04 FAO No.2021 of 1999 (O&M) -4-
3. The deceased was 24 years old. He was SPO at the time of his death. His salary was to be `1,700/-. I rework the compensation as per the table under:-
Age 24 years
Occupation
Claimants: Father and grandmother
Heads of claim Tribunal High Court
Sr. No. Amount (`) Amount (`)
1. Income 1,700
2. Add, % of increase 50% 2,550
3. Deduction ½, 1,275
4. Multiplicand 15,300
5. Multiplier 18
6. Loss of dependence 2,75,400
7. Medical expenses
8. Loss of consortium
9. Loss to estate 2,500
10. Funeral expenses 5,000
Total 2,82,900
4. The above said amount will attract interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on the 3rd respondent-National Insurance Company. The right of enforcement shall be available to the claimants against the 3rd respondent-National Insurance Company.
5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.03.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.04.02 16:04