Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This order shall dispose off the appeal being FAO-3786-2014 filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-objections being XOBJC-10- CII-2015 filed by the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on account of death of Dharamvir (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') vide award dated 10.03.2014.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 14.03.2012 deceased-Dharamvir alongwith Naresh Kumar was coming back in an Indica car bearing Registration No.HR-44-C-0909 to Sirsa from Malout after attending a marriage. At that time, the car in question was being driven by 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170387 FAO-3786-2014 (O&M) and -2- XOBJC-10-CII-2015 the deceased whereas Naresh Kumar was in the car as a passenger. One Bhoop Singh alongwith Rajender was also coming in his own car behind the car in question and when they reached little ahead of village Tappi at about 11.00 pm, a truck tipper bearing Registration No.HR-55-C-0673 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') was going ahead of the car in question. Dharamvir gave a dipper and blew the horn seeking way to overtake the offending vehicle upon which the driver of the offending vehicle indicated allowing them to overtake. However, when Dharamvir started overtaking, all of a sudden, the driver of the offending vehicle turned it towards its right side as a result of which the car in question struck against the rear end of the offending vehicle and both the occupants of the car i.e. Dharamvir and Naresh Kumar received serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to their injuries. FIR No.27 dated 15.03.2012 was registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal vide the impugned award held that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and awarded the following compensation :

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/cross-objector would contend that the deceased, who was driving the car, tried to overtake the offending vehicle by giving a dipper and blowing the horn and after the driver of the offending vehicle had indicated allowing the car to overtake, the deceased started overtaking and all of a sudden the driver of the offending vehicle turned it towards its right side, as a result of which the accident took place. Learned counsel would further contend that no evidence has been led to the contrary. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/cross- objector would further contend that the income of the deceased has been taken as per minimum wages. It has been contended that the deceased was owner of about 38 Bighas of land and he was cultivating the same as per Jamabandi (Ex.P-9). It has further been contended that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- from cultivating the said land.




                               4 of 8

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170387




FAO-3786-2014 (O&M) and                                                  -5-
XOBJC-10-CII-2015

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that it would be a case of contributory negligence deserves to be rejected. In the present case, PW2 had stepped into the witness box to depose qua the accident and he had specifically stated in his affidavit filed in examination-in-chief that the accident took place when the driver of the offending vehicle, after giving an indicator allowing the deceased to overtake, turned the offending vehicle towards its right side leading to the accident. Not even a suggestion was put that the manner in which the accident took place, as narrated by the said witness, was incorrect. In view thereof no fault can be found with the finding returned by the Tribunal.