1 52 C1 Il9 1 FAO Noe14450f1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No14450f1991 Datc of m t Smt Harpal Kaur and others 0 0 Appellants I versus 0 I Z Shri Lachhman Singhand otherse ra S Respondent e L 9 I Present Mre Maharaj Baksh SinghAdvocate for the appclIantse 08 Mre FSVirk Advocate for the rcspondcntsNoel SL2 r Mr Vinod Gupta Advocatc for the lnsurance Company No3 7 Z FAO No7 of 1992 National Insurance Company Appellante versus HarpalKaur and others Respondentse Present Mre Vinod Gupta Advocate for the appellantse Mr Maharaj Baksh Singh Advocate for the respondents Nol t04 Mre FSVirk Advocatc for thc lnsurance Company No5 and 6 4 Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 11 1 FAO No 1445 0f1991 2 CORAM 2 HONBLE MReJUSTICE KCPURI Ie ICCPURL J By this common order I intend to disposeof FAO N01445 of 1991 titled as Smt Harpal Kaur and others versus Shri m Ct Lachhman Singhand others for cnhancemcnt of compensationamount 0 C and FAO No17 of 1992 titled as National lnsurancc Company I versus Harpal Kaur and othcrs for absolving the appcllantfrom C5 I Iiabilityto pay thc compcnsationamounte For convenience facts are Z beingtaken from FAO No 14450f1991 r2 FactuaI matrix comprisingthe claim petition shorn of 1X 9 1 Cr unnecessary details is that at the relevant time Jagjit Singhslo Jagir 08 Singhrlo villageRanian Tchsil Moga aged30 years wa5 employed as a 00 foreman with Mls Jamna SyndicateCo Khanna 7 Z dealers in Escort tractors at a monthlysalaryofRse85010 On 2781982 0 he alongwithhis colleaguesInder Pal and ParamjitSinghwent to villageGhungralito deliver a new tractor to some purchaserAt about 10A5 PMe they were returningfrom Ghaungralito Khanna Jagjit Singhwas ridinghis motor cycleNo CHD 8681 and his companion ParamjitSinghand Inder Pal were ridingon another motor cycIeNo e e 1 PUN 355 At about 10A5 PM theywere passingthroughthe area of villageMohan Pur on the GeTeroad In the mean while the 01rending truck Noe NLA 335 driven by Lachman SinghrespondentNol rashly and negligently came from the side of Ludhiana It struck into the motor cycledriven by Jagjit Singhdeceased He sustaincd injuriesln 4 1 4 4e e 223 e45 m72C e V eelmem me llla r Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 J FAO No14450f1991 3 49 this accidentand succumbed to them on the spoteHowever Lachhman Singhtruck drivcr was able to run awayfrom the spot Inder Pal PW first went to inform the manager of Jamna SyndicateCompany KhannaeThen he went to the policestationand lodgedthe FIR Noe 131 1 of 28982 at PS Sadar Khanna under Section 304 IPC This accidenthad beencaused bythe rash and negligent drivingoftruck NOe 0 C NLA 335 bythe respondent Nol The truck is owned byRanjitSingh I respondent No2 and it is insuredwith respondent No Therefore the C9 I claimantswho are the legal ofthe deceasedhave Oled Z this claim petitionclaimingRs2OoOool as under Section 110A ofthe Motor VehiclesAct 1939 againstthe l HarpalKaur claimant is his widoW while RajinderSinghSukhwinder I a5 Singhand Parvinder Singhare his minor sonse m In their written statement the respondents N 1 and 2 have 7 Z contested this claim petition They have denied all the material 0m of the claimants They have shoutlyasserted that no accident took placeinvolving their truck No NLA 335 lll the area of villageMohanpur Oll GeT Road at about 1045 PM on 2892 It 1S also denied that the claimants are the legalrepresentativesof the deceasedor theyare entitled to claim on account of his death Insurance company respondent No3 has also contested this claim petitioneTheyhave also denied that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased or entitled to claim on account ofhis death It is dcnied that the death ofJagjitSinghdeceased Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 FAO Noe14450f1991 4 5 4 was causedin accident truck No NLA 335 But mercifullyit 1S admitted that at the relcvant time this truck was insured with the respondentcompany However it is pleadcdby it tbat its liability1S Iimited onlyto Rs500001eunder the statutCeTheyhave the 1 maintainabity of this claim petion The claim petition 1S statedto be Q 0 C Noal was not drivingthe truck lIl the course of his with the respondent No2 and that this truck did C5 not have valid number and it was being driven againstthe Z provisionsof Motor VehiclesAct It was not having a fltnessccrtiOcate It is also stated that the truck was used for the purpose of other than r the one specifIed in the route permitand was beingused for a purpose I 08 not covered under the terms of the InsurancePolicyTherefore it was ClO prayedthat this claim petition may be dismissedwith costs vm Z The claim petition was tried on the following issuesl Qw 1 Whether the claim pctition1S maintainable againstthe respondent No3P OPP 2 Whether the claim petition1S bad for nonoinder of necessaryparties2OPR 3 Whether the respondenlNol did not have a valid drivinglicenceat the timc Ofaccident2OPP 4 Whether the respondent N was not drivingthe truck No NLA 335 Ill the course of his with the respondent No2 ifso its eNect l2OPR8 5 Whether the truck Noe NLA 335 did not have valid Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1el 56 1 1 FAO No 1445of 1991 5 particulars at the time of accident and whether it was beingused driven against1he provisions of Mtor VehiclesAct2 Ifso its effect2 OPR 6 Whether truck Noe NLA 335 was beingused for the purposeother than specified in the route permitand was r beingused for the purpose not covercd under the terms of 0 0 the said policy2Ifso its eNect2OPR I 7 Whethcr truck Noe NLA 335 did not have fitness 0 I certificate and as such it could not be broughton the road Z Ifso its efYect2OPP 8e Whether JagjitSinghdied in an accident caused bythe Q rash and negligentdrivingof truck No NLA 335 by a5 No1 2 OPP 0 9 Whether the claimants are the legal of 7 Z the deceased2 tl 10 Whether the claimants are entitled to claim from the lf so how much and from which ofthem 20PP 110 What is the liabilityofthe Insurance company2 OPP 1 Relie The partieshave led their respectivc evidence on the aforesaid 1SSUCS The Tribunal after appraisalof the evidcnce and aftcr hearingIcarncd counsel for the parties partly allowed thc claim pctitionwith cOStSeThe respondentNos1 and 2 werc directed to pay Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 7 1 j FAONo4450f1991 6 7 Rsel200001 as to the claimants with interest 10 paeFrom the date of filing of this claim petitionLee 31319830 Noe 3 was held liable to indemnify the Noel and 2 to the extent ofthe wholeofthe Awarde Feelingdissatisfied with the aforesaid award appellant 1 Smt HarpalKaur and others havepreferredappealfor enhancement r of whereas India Insurance Company 0 0 Ltdehas filed the instant appeaI for absolving it from theliability I C9 I have heard the learned counsel for the partiesand have gonethroughtherecordsofthe casee Z Learned counsel for the Insurance company has submitted that liabilityof Insurance company is to the extent of Rs00001e0 The C accident has taken placeprior to 11001982 and the Tribunal has C wronglydecided this pointregardinglimited liabilityagainstthe r Insurance company The Insurance policyExhibit R4 has been placed vm Z on the file The Tribunal has observedthat originalInsurancePolicy C has not been placedon the file and Exhibit Rel is merelya certiOed copyeA certified copy is inadmissiblein evidence No extra premium the liabilityhas been paidby the owner of the vehicleeSo the learned Tribunal should havelimited the liabUityofthe Insurance company to the extent ofRse5000010The amount ofRs2401 paidbythe owner was in respectofbasic premiumto identifythe third partyeNo extra premiumregardingmakingthe liabilityunlimited has been paidLearned counsel for the Insurance company has relied upon the authorityreportedas Pto Ram Parkash and others vse Kanta Suri and another 11987e21PLJ 169 It is contendedthat even m respectof Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 vr1 FAO No 1445of 1991 7 third party where there is policythe liabilityof the Insurance company is to the extent of statutoryliabilityof Rs500001 To supportthis contention learnedcounselfor the Insurance company hasrelied upon the authorityreported as National Insurance Company Limited vse JugalKishore and others1988ACJ 270 1 In replyto the above noted argumentscounsel for the claimantshassubmittedthat in view of authorityreported as Oriental 0 0 InsuranceCo Ltde vs CheruvakkaraNafeessuand othersJT 2001 C SC 341 the Insurance company is liable to reimburse whole of the I amount and get recovered the same from the insuredeIt is further Z contendedthat theextra premium ofRse2401las beenpaidand as such theInsurance company is liable to pay whole ofthe amount So far as the appealfor enhancement is concerned counsel C4 for the claimants has submitted that the amount of Rs1200001 00 assessed by the Tribunal 1S OO lower sideeThe income of the deceased n7 Z hasbeentaken as Rse7501per month againsttheincomeof Rse8211e per lnonth The claimants are four in number and in view of authority reportedas Smte Sarla Verma and others vs Delhi Transport Corporationand another 2009131RCR Civill 77 114 amount should have been deducted regardingpersonal expenses for calculating the of the claimantseLearned Tribunal has wronglydeducted 113 amount for personalexpenses of the deceasede It is further contended that no amount regardingloss of consortium 8lneral expensesloss of estate etce has been grantedby the Tribunale So prayerhas been made for enhancement In replyto the above noted submissions counsel for the Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 P 4J FAO No 14450f1991 8 14 Insurance company has submitted that deceasedwas workingm a privatecompany and was not in a permanentjobeSo the factum of future increase of income cannot be taken Earlier the claim petition was accepted and asum of Rse645001e was allowed The multiplierof 20 at the age of 32 cannot be allowed as even according to SmteSarla m Vermas case Supra themultiplier at theage of32 should be 160 C I have givenmy thoughtfulconsideration to the rival 0 C contentionsmade by counsel for both the sides and have also gone I 9 through therecord ofthe casee FAO Noe 17 0f1992 Z The accident ln the present case has taken placeon 27819820Exhibit Rm3is the InsurancePolicyin respectof 0Hending truck insured with N03 for the period14601982 to 08 13061983So the periodof accident lS covered by the said PolicyAn 0 amount of Rse2401 is stated to have been paidin respectof third vmeo Z party The total amount ofpremium paidis shownas under1 tl Basic Rse1850e00 lV Rse 70000 DIC I1se 16000 TP I2se240000 Rse2806A0 30 non claim bonus Rs 84100 Rse196420 Less 100 discount Rse 196A2 Rsl76778 rounded ofFto Rse17681 4ae The Tribunal has held that amount of Rse2401 has been paid lll respectof third partye So in these circumstances the authoritiesrelied upon by counsel for the appellantshave rightlybeen not relied upon bythe Tribunal It is not disputedduringthe course of Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 t FAO No14450f1991 9 r that liabilitycan be made unelimited by payingextra Sincethe Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that extra 1 premium has been paid lll respectof third party so in these circumstances the appealpreferredby the Insurance company 1S withoutany merit and the same standsdismissed 4 FAO No 1445of 1991 l Now reverting to the appealpreferredbythe claimantsfor 0 C3 enhancementof the income of the deceasedhas been I C5 taken as Rse7501per month That ftndingof the Tribunal doesnot call I for any interferenceeIn case is calculatedafter deducting Z 11 amount in respectof personalexpenses of the deceased the amount comes to Rse562005P per montheThe yearly C comes to Rse67501eThe multiplier at the ageof32 as per Smt Sarla Vermas 08 case 1Supra 1S 160 So the amount of comes to OO Rse1080001 6750 X 1610 The Tribunal has not allowed any amount in V2 Z respect of lossof consortium loss of estate and 8ineral expenseseSo an Qm amount of Rse120001estands allowed on these three headseSo the amount of standscalculatedas Rsel2000010 So in these circumstances no scope for enhancementof is made oute Consequently the appealpreferredbythe claimantsis also without any merit and the same stands dismissede 1 My 19tA 2010 Judge svlchugh o V Rani Anita 2012.09.06 11: 57 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document