F.A.O.NO. 1904 OF 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1904 OF 1993 Date of decision:9th February, 2011 Amrik Singh .......Appellant Versus Muni Lal Yadav and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocte, for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the claim for compensation in a case where the claimant who was a driver of a car, suffered grievous injuries which was assessed at 36% disability. It was a case of collision with another truck coming from the opposite direction. The Tribunal found that the driver himself as responsible for the accident. F.A.O.NO. 1904 OF 1993 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would plead that in a case of collision the claimant was entitled to secure compensation on no fault basis under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the dismissal of the petition is erroneous. I uphold the claim and hold that the claimant was entitled to `12,000/-, even consistent with its reasoning. This has now been affirmed in a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anor. Vs. C.S.Gurushanthappa and Anr (2010) 8 Scale 263 that the amount which is to be paid under Section 140 of the Act by the Insurance Company shall be out of a surplus reserve that shall be kept to satisfy the claim irrespective of the issue of negligence. 3. The award of the Tribunal is modified and there shall be a compensation of `12,000/- for the claimant against the insurance company. This amount shall attract interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik