IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No. 155 of 1989 Mohan Lal alias Mohni. ....... Appellant through Shri H.S.Bajwa, Advocate. Versus Amarpreet Singh and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Nemo. Respondent no.2 through Shri H.S.Dhandi, Advocate. Respondent no.3 through Shri N.K.Khosla, Advocate. (2) F.A.O. No. 327 of 1989 Amarpreet Singh. ....... Appellant through Nemo. Versus Mohan Lal alias Mohni and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri H.S.Bajwa, Advocate. Respondent no.2 through Shri H.S.Dhandi, Advocate. Respondent no.3 through Shri N.K.Khosla, Advocate. Date of Decision: 5.12.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -2- .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals which have been directed against award dated 29.10.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.10/Add. of 22.2.1988. In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.10.1987, Amarpreet Singh sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.88500/- to him along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 18.2.1988, i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization, under the following heads:- 1. Pain and agony and on account of 50% permanent partial disability and loss of enjoyment of life = Rs.50,000.00 2. Treatment and medicines = Rs.13500.00 3. Conveyance charges = Rs. 1750.00 4. Expenses of attendants = Rs. 3000.00 5. Wages to be incurred on tractor driver = Rs.19200.00 Total = Rs.88450.00 This sum was rounded off to Rs.88500/-. Mohan Lal alias Mohni was held liable to satisfy the award. Mohan Lal alias Mohni has filed F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 challenging his liability as fixed by the Tribunal, whereas Amarpreet Singh has preferred F.A.O.No.327 of 1989 for enhancement of the compensation F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -3- .... granted to him. The only question that requires determination in F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 is as to whether or not appellant-Mohan Lal, who was the subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle from its original owner – Sher Singh, was liable to satisfy the award or it should be the insurance company with whom the offending vehicle was insured. Learned counsel for appellant-Mohan Lal contended that concededly the offending vehicle was purchased by Mohan Lal from Sher Singh and the same was insured. He further contended that in view of this, the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on Mohan Lal to satisfy the award on the premise that the intimation of the transfer of the offending vehicle had not been given to the insurance company. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the award of the Tribunal is perfectly valid and since no intimation was given to insurance company, no liability could be fastened on it. Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in so far as the liability is concerned, is erroneous for two reasons – (i) the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove that the intimation about the transfer of the offending vehicle had not been given to it, and (ii) even if the intimation had not been given, it would have been of no consequence as the liability of the insurer towards third party cannot be absolved in view of the provisions of Sections 94 and 95 of the Motor F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -4- .... Vehicles Act,1939. While dealing with the similar question, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla Versus Tilak Singh and others, 2006(2) P.L.R. 297 (S.C.), observed in paragraphs 9 and 13 of the judgment as under:- “9. Citing with approval the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondajah and others Versus Yaseen Fatima and others, AIR 1986 A.P. 62, and contrasting the provisions of Section 103-A of the 1939 Act with Section 157 of the 1988 Act, thisCourt said in Complete Insulations Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (1996-1) 112 P.L.R. 202 (S.C.) = (1996) 1 S.C.C. 211, (vide para 6) `Now, under the Old Act although the insurer could refuse to transfer the certificate of insurance in certain circumstances and the transfer was not automatic as under the new Act, there was under the old law protection to third parties, that is victim of the accident. The protection was available by virtue of Sections 94 and 95 of the old Act.” 13. Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transfer to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether under Section 103-A of the 1939 Act or under Section 157 of the 1988 Act in so far as the liability towards a third party is F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -5- .... concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way,making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue. However, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the accident took place after the 1988 Act had come into force. Hence, it is the 1988 Act which would govern the situation.” In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, which has been reproduced above, the appeal of Mohan Lal deserves to be accepted as the finding recorded by the Tribunal making him liable to satisfy the award cannot be sustained. In so far as F.A.O.No.327 of 1989 is concerned, it has come in the statement of AW1-Dr.Shiv Shakti Dhawan,Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, that Amarpreet Singh suffered the following injuries:- “1. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep obliquely over the bridge of the nose. Advised x-ray nose. 2. Two abrasions 5 cm x .5 cm on the front in the middle at 2 cm apart running vertically on the forehead. 3. Bleeding from both the nostrils present. F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -6- .... 4. A raddish abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of right elbow. 5. A lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm on front of right leg in its upper 1/3rd. 6. A raddish abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm irregular on the front of right leg in its upper 1/3rd. 7. A raddish abrasion 8 cm x 6 cm irregular on the medial side of left thigh in its lower 1/3rd. 8. A raddish contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on the front of right thigh in its lower 1/3rd. 9. A lacerated wound 4 cm 1.5 cm x muscle deep on the left side of face, just lateral to the angle of the mouth on the left side running downward obliquely. Bleeding present.” AW6- Dr.Lajpat Rai of Christian Medical College,Ludhiana stated that Amarpreet Singh was admitted in their hospital under his care in Neuro-surgical Service with the history of road traffic accident with the following injuries:- 1. Closed head injury. 2. Cerebral contusion. 3. Fracture nasal bones. 4. Multiple laceration on face. 5. Fracture of both bones of right leg and fracture of left radius. AW7-Dr.Rachhpal Singh had examined Amarpreet Singh to ascertain the disability which he had suffered. After due examination, as per this witness, Amarpreet Singh was found having 50% permanent partial F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -7- .... disability. AW7 further stated that on account of this disability, Amarpreet Singh is not likely to drive a motor car or a tractor and he is not also capable of running, but he can walk slowly to carry out his routine activities. Having regard to the above mentioned evidence, in my view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Amarpreet Singh is inadequate. As seen above, Amarpreet Singh has suffered injuries which would have impact on his functioning for entire life. In this view of the matter when Amarpreet Singh has suffered 50% permanent partial disability and the fact that it has nowhere come on record that the same can be cured, it would be just and appropriate if the principle of Rs.2000/- per percentage of the disability is adopted in the instant case. Accordingly, Amarpreet Singh is awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of disability having been suffered by him. It is made clear that the aforesaid amount shall be in addition to the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the heading “Pain and agony and on account of 50% permanent partial disability and loss of enjoyment of life.” The said amount of Rs.50,000/- will be treated on account of pain & agony and loss of enjoyment of life. The compensation awarded under the other heads does not require any interference and is maintained. In this way, Amarpreet Singh is held entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,88,450/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,88,500/-, as compensation. The enhanced compensation shall be payable to Amarpreet F.A.O.No.155 of 1989 -8- .... Singh along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The insurance company of the offending vehicle shall be liable to pay the compensation and interest to Amarpreet Singh. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 05,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge