55 4 FAO N 4487 of 2004 1 1 ef IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH J0 1 t 5t k k FAO No 4487 of 2004 Date of decision 1 300 Ol 09 ManjeetKaur and others Appellants Versus Sudesh Kumar and others ee espondents FAO N0A488 of 2004 1 AngrejKaurandanother neAppellants 0 Versus C I Sudesh Kumar and others 04ee espondents C9 I FAO No933 of 2004 Z United India Insurance Co Ltd Appellants a Versus l AngrejKaurandothers Respondents I 6 FAO No934 of 2004 r United India Insurance Co Ltd n7 Z ppellants Versus ManjeetKaur and others Iean Respondents 1 Ik Ik P 9r CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH 5 k 5 5t 5 Present Mr Sham Lal Bhalla Advocate for the appellants ManjeetKaurandAngrejKau Mr GopaIMittal Advocate and Mr Vvl GuptaAdvocate for Insurance Company 0V 8 1r 1r 9r JORA SINGH J Throughthis common judgmentI propose to dispose of Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 1 FAO No 4487 of 2004 2 e FAO NoA487 of 2004 filed by ManjeetKaur and others FAO 1 N4488 of 2004 filed byAngrejKaur and other FAO Nos333 and 3934 filed bythe United Indian Insurance CompanyLimited as all the rl FAOs are arisingout of the same cause of action Claim petitionNo2T dated 2l l Ol was instituted by ManjeetKaur and others againstSudesh Kumar and others to caim compensationon account of the death of Jasbir Singh in the 1 roadside accident Claim petitionNo 54T dated 31 12002 was instituted by AngrejKaur and others AgainstSudesh Kumar and 0 0 others to claim compensationon account of the death of Dal bir I C5 Singh I In claim petitionN92mT filed by ManjitKaur and others Z an amount of Rs 4320001 and in claim petitionNo544 filed by n tr AngrezKaur and others an amount of Rs3700001 was awarded t I Il as compensationpayableto the claimants Award dated 91994 in 08 c0 claim petitionNo2mT and in claim petitionNo were impugned W7 by ManjitKaur and others and AngrejKaur and others respectively Z tl Insurance Companyhad also impugnedthe award byfilingSeparate FAOs As per claimants in both the claim petitionson 52001 AjitSinghson of ArjanSinghalongwith Mansa Singh son of Bhan Singhwas returningfrom Chamkaur Sahib towards their villagevla Morinda on their scooter Dalbir Singhand Jasbir Singhwere also goingto their villagefrom Morinda on their scooter No238754 AjitSinghand Mansa Singhwere followingDalbir Singh and Jasbir Singh At about 1100 AM theywere Itl the area of villageBooth Garh Balla In the meantime bus NoBel OAP1447 came from the Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 FAO N 4487 of 2004 3 ee side of Ludhiana without blowinghorn Bus was beingdriven rashly and negligentlybyManjitSingh Bus was struck againstscooter No PB2383754 Jasbir Singhand DaIbir Singhwere run over bythe bus Their scooter was totallydamaged Accident was due to rash and negligentdrivingof Bus No PBlOAP447 byManjitSingh On account of the death of Dalbir Singh in roadside 1 accident claim petitionwas preferredby AngrejKaur and another and on account of the death of Jasbir Singhin roadside accident 0 C separateclaim petitionwas filed byManjitKaur and others I C5 Notice was issued to the respondentsin both the clai m I petitions Z Respondents no 1 82 filed a jointwritten statement by a r denyingall the allegationsof the claimants Theytook the pleathat J1 I the alleged accident had taken place as a result of fast and rn uncontrolled drivingof deceased Jasbir Singh It was further 7 submitted that the above said Bus NPB1 04P1447 was duly Z insured with respondent no Insurance Companyfiled separatewritten statement in both the claim petitionsand denied the accident and their Iiabilityto paythe amount of compensation Theytook the pleathat Insurance company has got no Iiabilityas the Insurance policy has been purchased by respondentno 1 for the period52001 to 47 2002 ie after causingthe accident and thus a fraud has been playedwith the Insurance Companyand the facts were not disclosed at the time of purchaseof policy Insurance Companyhas got investigated the case that previouslybus was insured with National Insurance Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 FAO No487 of 2004 4 rp Limited for the period1e f 42000 to 32001 From the pleadingsof the partiesfollowingissues were framed in claim petitionFAO No487 of 2004 1 Whether Jasbir Singhson of ArjanSinghdied in Motor Vehicle Accident on 52001 near viilageKotla BadIa due to rash and negiigentdrivingof Bus NoPB4O AP 1447 driven byrespondentManjeetSingh7OPA 2 Is issue nol proved then what amount of 1 compensationthe claimants are entitled and from 0 C whom7 OPP C5 3 Whether the driver of Bus No34O AP1447 not I havingvalid and effective drivingIicense at the time of Z accident 7 OPR3W 4 Whether this Court has got no territorial jurisdictionto I entertain and trypresentpetition7OPR 08 r 5 Whether the claim petitionIS bad for mis40inderof m7 necessary parties 1e Insurance Companyof scooter Z No PB2343 37547 OPR3 6 Relief Followingissues were framed in FAO No488 of 2004 1 Whether Dalbir Singhson of Swaran Singh died In Motor Vehicle Accident on 572001 near villageKotIa Badla due to rash and negligentdrivingof Bus NoB 10 AP1447 driven byrespondentManjeetSingh7OPA 2 s issue nol proved then what amount of compensationthe claimants are entitled and from whom7OPP Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 FAO No487 of 2004 5 r 3Nhether the driver of Bus NoBe1 O AP1447 not r8 havingvalid and effective drivingIicense at the time of accident 70PR3 4 Whether this Court has got no territorialjurisdiction to entenain and trypresentpetition2OPR 5 Whether the claim petitionis bad for misjoinderof necessarypartiese Insurance Companyof scooter NoBe23B 37542 OPR8 6 Relief 0 C0 Evidence was Ied in both the ciaim petitionsand I C5 ultimately claim petitions were accepted I Feeling aggrievedagainstthe award dated 92004 appealwere separatelyfiled by the claimants as well as by the m e Insurance Company I Learned counsel for the arguedthat 08 oo Jasbir Singhdeceased was 45 years olcl He was servingin a private ee3 Z factoryand was gettingR60001 per month but income of Jasbir C Singhwas not properlytaken into consideration while passingaward Dalbir Singhdeceased was unmarried and he was 22 years old He wasa combine driver employedby Mukhtiar Singh Income of Dalbir Singh was also not taken into consideration to calculate the compensation Learned counsel for the Insurance Companyarguedthat Income of the deceased was rightlycalculated No question of enhancement of compensation Offendingvehicle was insured initiallywith National Insurance CompanyLimited for the periodfrom 472000 to 372001 Offendingvehicle was insured with the United Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 FAO No 4487 of 2004 6 e India Insurance CompanyIimited but the policywas purchasedafter the accident dated 5 2001 There was investigationby the Insurance Company PoIicywas purchasedby the Insurer with the connivance of an employeeof the Company Criminal case was got registeredagainstthe employeeof the Insurance Company At the time of the accident offendingvehicle was not insured so Company IS not Iiable for paymentof compensation First point is whether income of Jasbir Singhwas rightly 1 tr taken into consideration or not Jasbir Singhwas 45 years old at the 0 C time of accident Accordingto the claimants he was serving in a I C5 privatefactoryand was getting60001 per month But to support I this allegationthere IS no cogentand convincingevidence on the Z file Sohan Singhstated that Jasbir Singhwas empioyedwith him and he was gettingRs44001 per month P is the salarycettificate but statement of Sohan Singhis without any evidential value because 08 rn he was income tax assessee But salaryof Jasbir Singhdeceased was not shown in the return Sohan Singhwas not maintaining Z r account books No receiptwas issued regardingpaymentof salary No attendance registerof the employeewas being maintained by Sohan Singh Without attendance registerit is very difficult to opine as to who was the employeewith Sohan Singhwhen Sohan Singh was income tax assessee then the questionis whythe salaryofthe deceased was not shown in the return Account books were not beingmaintained by Sohan Singh So without documentaryproof it is very easy to state that deceased was an employeeand was getting a particularamount as salaryper month ManjitKaur is the widow of Jasbir Singhand in crossexamination admitted that no receiptwas Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 FAO No487 of 2004 7 1 issuedqua receiptof salary Deceased was maintaining accounts of income but no proofonthefile Therefore income of the deceased 2r Jasbir Singhwas rightlyassessed Next questionis whether Dalbir Singhdeceased was a driver and his income was rightlyassessed or not AdmittedlyDalbir Singhwas unmarried He was 22 years old PW1 PaI Singhin chief stated that Dalbir Singhwas 22 years old and he was a driver Dalbir Singh also used to dig bores and was earning Rs150 per 1 day PW2 Mukhtiar Singh stated that Dalbir Singh was an 0 C employeewith him as combine driver and was gettingR300001 for I C5 two seasons Dalbir Singhwas 22 years old In crossexamination he admitted that no registerhad been maintained regardingpayment Z of salary No receiptwas received from Dalbir Singt No record was e r maintained regardingemployment of Dalbir Singh No record was I being maintained regardingincome from the combine Therefore a5 Cn statement of Mukhtiar Singhis not helpfulto the claimants because 7 there is no receiptregardingpaymentof salary No attendance Z Ll register no register regardingincome of Mukhtiar Singhfrom the Combine has been placedon record AngrejKaur is the mother of Dalbir Singh deceased and stated on oath that deceased was 22 years old He was a Iabourer and was workingon a combine as seasonal He also used tosink bores He used to earn Rs150001 from combine season and R1001 per dayfrom work of boring In crossexamination admitted that deceased was not havingany bank account He was not maintainingaccounts books regardinghis income N0 receiptwas issued to receive salaryfrom his employer As discussed earlier Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 FAO No1487 of 2004 8 without proofit is very difficult to opinethat deceased was a Combine Driver and was gettingR150001oer seaso No one came forward to state that Dalbir Singhwas employedto sink bores and was gettingan amount of Rl 001150 per dayNithout documentaryproof anyone can be produced to state that the deceased was earning Rs00018000 per month But deceased beingof young age was expectedto earn R30001 per month as observed by the Iearned Tribunal Meaningtherebyincome of both 1 l the deceased was rightlycalculated No questionof interference 0 C Allegationof the insurance Companywas that offending I C5 vehicle was firstlyinsured with the National Insurance Company I Limited for the periodstartingfrom 472000 to 37200 1 Without Z disclosingabout the accident policywas purchasedby the United m C India Insurance Company Limited with the connivance of an employeeof the Companyfor the periodfrom 572001 to 472002 08 rn Therefore when the offendingvehicle was not insu red then f 7 Companyis not Iiable Submission of the Iearned counsel for the Z CL Insurance Companyis without any force Admittedlyaccident was Oll 57 2001 at about 1100 N HardipSingh Managerof the Companystated that policywas purchasedby the insured with the connivance of one of the official of the Company Ex7 is the enquiryrepolt But enquiryofficer was not produced Even if the policywas obtained on the date of accident it becomes operative from the previousmidnightof the date of insurance and the insurace Companyis Iiable as has been held in New India Assurance Companv Limited Vs Ram Daval and others Accidents Claims Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 FAO No487 of 2004 9 Journal 1990 No difficultyto opine that the oHendingvehicle was insured at the time of accident No other submission was putforward In view of the all discussed above there is no infirmity or illegalityin the lmpugnedawards dated 92004 ResultantlyFAO Nos 4487 4488 3933 and 3934 stand dismissed 1 0 C D Ol090 JORA SINGH I I ritu JUDGE C5 I Z e I 08 r 7 Z Qe t4J t 2 6 1Jo lNO Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.28 17: 30 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document