FAO No.426 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.426 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.01.2011 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Gurdial Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (herein referred to as ‘the appellant’), has preferred this appeal against the award dated 10.09.2010 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (herein referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Gurdial Singh, claimant, was awarded an amount of ` 1,20,00/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2005, Gurdial Singh along with one Jasbir Singh were coming back from Gobindgarh to Sangrur in a Maruti Zen car bearing No.HR-19-B- 0219. When they reached near the Bus Stand of Hardaspur, the car, which was being driven by gurdial Singh, rammed into a Tata truck 1 FAO No.426 of 2011 bearing No.HR-46-A-0904, which was standing in the middle of the road without using dipper and indicators and all the three occupants received various injuries. Due to the accident, Jasbir Singh succumbed to the injuries whereas Gurdial Singh, claimant, received multiple injuries on his right leg and left arm and fracture on chin and jaw. The third occupant, Kirpal Singh had also received some injuries. It was alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of truck No.HR-46-A-0904, as he had not used parking lights or indicator and therefore, created obstacle on the main road. 3. In this backdrop, the claimant filed claim petition for the grant of compensation against the driver, owner and the Insurance Company, herein appellant, on the ground that the injured, Gurdial Singh, was 60 years of age at the time of accident. He was self- employed contactor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimant also tendered in evidence disability certificate, Ex.PA, issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala, as per which, the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 17%. 4. Upon notice, the respondents contested the claim petition and denied the accident. They pleaded that if at all an accident took place, it was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Zen car by its driver. The appellant-Insurance Company averred that the driver of the truck in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The truck was not having valid route permit and fitness certificate. However, the owner did not contest the petition and was proceeded against ex parte. 2 FAO No.426 of 2011 5. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Gurdial Singh son of Babu Singh received injuries in a Motor Vehicular Accident caused by the rash and negligent driving truck No.HR-46-A-0904 and Maruti Zen Car HR-19-B-0219, on 20.10.2005 at G.T. road bear bus stand Hardaspur PS Sadar, Patiala at about 9.00 pm ? OPA 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether respondent/driver of TATA Truck No.HR-46-A- 0904 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 4. Whether TATA Truck No.HR-46-A-0904 was not holding a valid route permit and valid fitness certificate, if so its effect ? OPR-3 5. Whether this court has got (no) jurisdiction to try and decide this claim petition ? OPR-3 6. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR-3 7. Relief. 6. The learned Tribunal, after appraisal of evidence, decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant by holding that the accident in question took place on 20.10.2005 in the are of village Hardaspur due to rash and negligent act of the driver, who had parked truck No.HR- 46-A-0904 in the middle of the road without switching on its parking 3 FAO No.426 of 2011 lights, wherein Maruti Zen car No.HR-19-B-0219 hit against the truck from behind resulting into injuries to all the three occupants including the claimant. While deciding Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,200/- to the claimant. Issue No.3 was decided against the appellant-Insurance Company by holding that the driving was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending truck at the time of the accident. Issues No.4 to 6 were formal and not pressed before the learned Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 60 years. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at that time. The accident is proved by cogent evidence. The onus to prove that the driver or the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy, lies heavily on the Insurance Company. The appellant has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 9. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is most reasonable and is not excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any deficiency or perversity in the impugned award. 10. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. The amount of ` 25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company be transferred to the learned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. 4 FAO No.426 of 2011 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 19.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 5