53 1 FAO No1893 of 2008 11j iNTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH k 5t k k R FAO No1893 of 2008 Dateof decision l December 11 2009 t k A k Orientalinsurance CompanyLimited Ie Appellant C 0 Versus C I C5 Suman Devi and others Respondents Z tRkRR r CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH I k k R t k 08 m Presentl Mr D P GuptaAdvocate for the appellant mW3 Z Mr RajeshSharma Advocate for nolto 6 Mr Vishal Chaudhari Advocate for respondentno 8 Ik k ek ek k JORA SINGH J The Oriental Insurance CompanyLimted throughSh S Sharma DeputyManagerdirected this appealagainstthe award dated 71 22007 rendered by Motor Accident Clams Tribunal Bhiwani lereinafter referred to as the Tribunall By this awa rd claim petitionNo146 and 149 of 2004 were acceptedwith costs In Claim Petition no 146 fjled by Suman Devi and others Gupta Suruchi 2013.06.11 15: 16 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 1 1 FAO No1893 of 2008 121 Rs259200 plusRs100001 was awarded as payable to Suman Devi and others and in Claim petitionN149 filed by Surender Kumar award of Rs250001 was passedpayablewith interest at the rate of 7Io per ann u m with the direction that the awarded amount is recoverablefrom no 182 Both the Insurance Companiesie Oriental Insurance CompanyLimlted and 0 New India Assurance CompanyLimited are Iiable for paymentof 0 amount of award in equalshare I C Rajeshdeceased was a truck driver on truck bearing m e No DL1GA11208 Surender was a cleaner on the sad Z truckTruck driven by Rajeshcame from the side of Beowar towards Delhi Truckwas at a moderatespeed While in the area of Ajmer I truck bearing No HR 47 R16295 vvas noticed while 08 comingfrom the oppositedirection The above said truck was being CO driven by Ran Singh rashlya nd negligentlyand due to rash and 7 negligentdrivingof the truck byRa n Singh it was struck againstthe sp truck driven byRajesh In the accident RajeshKumar had received multiplegrievousinjuries RajeshKumardied onthespot Surender also received injuriesand became unconscious but Ra n S ngh to save himself gotregistered FlR no8 of 2004 dated 32004 under Sections 279 377 and 304 A IPC againstdeceased Rajeshwho was 28 years old and was earningRsl O000 per month as driver Claim Petition N146 to seek compensation on account of the death of Rajeshinstituted by Su ma n Devi and others a nd claim petitionN149 of 2004 filed by Surender Kumar were decided bya common award dated 7 122007 Gupta Suruchi 2013.06.11 15: 16 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 FAO No1893 of 2008 131 1 OrientaI1n su rance Com pany L mited fiIed appea1on the that Iearned Tribunal wronglyopinedthat Rajeshwhile Truck No DL1GA11208was also negligentOn account of negligenceof Rajesh Oriental insurance Company Limited was wronglydirected to contribute half of the awarded L amount Award was not passedagainstthe owner of the vehicle 0 VVithoutpassingaward againstthe owner of the vehicle Insurance C0 cannot be directed to pay compensationRajeshDriverof I C5 Truck No DLIGA11208 was not a third partyso his risk is not covered under the policy While awarding multiplierwas not Z properlyapplied Multiplierof not more than 12 could be used r Learned counsel for the respondentsarguedthat Rajesh I was drivingTruck No DL1GA11208and was comingtowards Delhi 08 side In the area of Ajmer Truck No HR 47 R16295 was sighted f while comingfrom the oppositeside driven by Ran Singh Acdent 7 Z occurred due to rash and negligentdrivingof Truck noR 47 R16295byRan FlR No168 dated 302004 was regstered at the instance of Ran Singh Learned Tribunal rightlyawarded compensation As per story Rajeshwas drving Truck No DLIGA11208and was goingtowards Delhi side Accident wasinthe area of AjmerTruck No HR 47 R16295driven by Ran Singhwas goingtowards Ajmerside Accident was amongsttwo truck one driven byRajeshand anotherdriven by Ran Singh In the accident Rajeshhad received multiplegrievousinjuries He died on the spot CIeanerwith Rajeshalso received injuries Afterthe death of RajeshFlR was gotregisteredby Ran Gupta Suruchi 2013.06.11 15: 16 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 161 r FAO No1893of 2008 141 Singhdriver of Truck No HR 47 R16295 Truck No DL1GA11208 was insuredwith Oriental insurance CompanyLimited Ex R1 8 ls thecopy of insurance policy Truck NoiR 47 R16295driven by Ran Singhwas also lnsuredwith New India Assurance CompanyIimited Annexure R1 1 L IS the copy of the policy 0 Ran Singhwas the complainantin FlR N168 and was 0 thedriver of Truck No HR 47 R16295 Written statement was filed I C5 Accident was admittedbut ailegation of Ran Singhwas accident was due to negligentand rash drivingof Rajesh Ieceasedl but Ran Z Singhfailed to appear in the Court in supportof the abovesaid 1 In case Ran Singhwas not at fauit and accident was I due to rash and negligentdrivingof Truck No DLIGAIl 208 by C6 Rajesh then Ran Singhshould have appearedin the Court to state fn that he was not at fault Noappearanceof Ran Slnghis fatal 7 Z Adverse inference is to be drawn againstRan Singh Owner of QD Truck No HR 47 R16295and InsuranceCompanyof the abovesaid truck cannot argue that accident was due to rash and negligent drivingof Truck No DL1GA11208 byRajesh As per evidence on the file Iearned Tribunal rightlyopinedthat accident was due to the negligence of Driver of Truck No DLIGAIl 208 Ie Rajeshand Ran Singhdriver of Truck No HR 47 R16295 While discussing Issue No 1 IearnedTribunal opinedthat accident in questionoccu rred on account of negligence on the part of Rajesh1eceasedl and Ran Singh Againstthe award dated 7 122007 no appeal or reVISion by the respondents That means findingof the Iearned Gupta Suruchi 2013.06.11 15: 16 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 r4 1 l51 FAO No1893 of 2008 Tribunalhas attainedfinality Next of the is that Rajesh Ieceasedl wasnot at faul Accident was due to the fault of Ran Singhdriver of TruckNo HR 47 R16295 As per policypetitionerCompanyis not Iiableto pay to the of RaJeshRajeshwas 1 nota thirdparty But in supportof this allegationIearnedcounsel for 0 the failed to cite any authorityto the effect that when there 0 Is an accidentbetween two vehicles and evidence is to the eHectthat I C5 boththe drivers were Iiable then Insurance Companyof the Truck whichwas beingdriven bythe deceased is not Iiablefor paymentto Z the heirs of the deceased In the presentcase there was a head on C collisioni whyboth the drivers of the vehicles were found to be I SupposeTruck No HR 47 R16295is not involved in the 08 Truck dven by Rajeshhad met wth an accident and QO death of driver of truck on the spot then whether in that case Z Companyis not Iiable to pay to the hei rs of the l deceased Even on account of no fault IiabilityCompanyis Iiableto payRs0001 to the heirs of the deceased After the evidence if Tbunal opinedthat death was in roadside accident then whether companyis Iiable or not As discussed earlier Truck No DL1GA11208was beingdriven by Rajeshwhereas Truck No HR 47 R16295 was being driven by Ran Singh As per evidence Truck driven by Ran Singh collided with the truck driven by Rajesh In the accident Rajeshhad succumbed to his injurieson the spot and both the drivers were at fault Accident was due to rash and negligent drivingof both the drivers Then 1am of the opinionIearned Trjbunal Gupta Suruchi 2013.06.11 15: 16 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 1 P FAO No1893 of 2008 61 rightlyopinedthat accident was on account of negligence on the partof boththe drivers Deceased was about 28130years4s per post mortem repoltdeceased was 30 years old Whereas widow of the deceased states that deceased was 28 yearsold deceased was truck driver No receiptwas 0 producedthat deceased was gettingR 100001e per month as C salary Income of the deceased was assessed at the rate of I C5 Rs3001 per month Keepingin view the unit systemdeceased was 4t expectedto spentR6001 per month to maintain 1nself Monthly Z income of the deceased was calculated at the rate of Rs27001 and e r as per age of the deceased suitable multiplier was applied No I authority was cted bythe Iearnedcounsel for the petitjoner that if the 08 deceased is 28130years old and was a truck driver then multjplierof r 16to calculatethe compensation ISon the higherslde 7 Z No other submission was putforward In view of a1l discussed above there IS no or illegality in the impugned award dated 1272007 Award isto be set aside if the same is againstIawand is perverse AppeaIwithoutmeritis dismissed 1 A4I t vy Decemberll 2009 SINGH 1 ritu JUDGE Gupta Suruchi 2013.06.11 15: 16 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document