63 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 413 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 February I1 2011 1 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 413 of 1988 0 National Insurance Company Appellant 0 1 I C5 VERSUS I Karnail Singh and others Respondents 1 Z C CORAM HONBLE MROUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1e Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see Z the judgment7 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 00 3 e Whether the judgmentshould be reported in the Digest 7 7 Z Presentl None for the appellant Mr Karan SinghSandhu Advocate for MrAnupamGupta Advocate for the respondentSe MOHINDER PALe Je Defendantappellant National Insurance Company hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company IS in second appeal aggrieved againstthe judgmentsand decrees passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents against the Insurance Company for recovery of 1 . Rashmi 2012.05.26 10: 17 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 r 2 Retlular Second Appeal No13 of 1988 Rsl44200 e Rs1070001 as principalamount and Rs372001 as interestl was decreed with costs and with future interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount 1 Khushal Singh predecessorninterestof the plaintif L respondents died on 4121981 He Khushal Singhl had 0 0 purchasedtruck bearing registrationNoHPG873 by getting Ioan I C5 from the State Bank of India The said truck had admittedly been I insured with the Insurance Company in the sum of Rsl200001 Z On 2212 1981 this truck which was beingdriven by Parkash Chand from Hoshiarpurto Bombayand was Ioaded with turpentine tr pine oil etc highlyinflammable material met with an accident I with truck bearingregistration NoGTXe8228 driven by Ram Chand t0 Z The truck No HPG873 was completelydestroyed A case for rash m and negligentdriving was registeredagainst Ram Chand driver of 1 7 truck NoGTX8828 at the instance of plaintiff Jarnail Singh Z Intimation with regard to this accident had been given to the ll Insurance Company The Insurance Companysent its surveyor namely KR Arora from Delhi to inspect the Ioss The surveyor inspectedthe remains of truck NoHPGe873 and assessed the compensable payable at Rs070001 Exhibit DA is the 1 Insurance Certificate Ill respectof truck NoHPG873 It reveals 1 that this truck had been insured for Rsl200001 The Insurance 1 Policy was valid from 11061981 to 1061982 As noticed above the accident had taken place on 2212 1981 ie within the insured period PlaintiffsrespondentsKarnail Singh Jarnail . Rashmi 2012.05.26 10: 17 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 P 3 Reqular Second Apoeal No13 of 1988 Singhand Ramesh Kumar are thesons of Khushal Singhcdeceasedl whereas Santosh Kumar and Veena Devi are the daughtersof Khushal Singh and Salochna Devi is the widow ofKhushalSingh The State Bank of India had 1 filed a suit against the plaintiffespondentsfor recovery of Ioan 1 amount of the truck in question as IS evident from the copy of 0 0 order Exhibit PX passed by the Sub JudgeIst Class In that case I C5 J Rana an employeeof the said Bank had appeared as a I witness and had deposed that Khushal Singh predecessorr Z interest of the plaintiffs had received the Ioan from the State Bank of India The statement of JS Rana is available on record as Exhibit R The said suit filed by the Bank against the plaintiff I respondents was decreed Parkash Chand driver of the truck Z insured with the appellant Insurance Companyappeared as Pl m and deposed about the accident in question Jarnail Singhand 7 Karnaii Singh piaintiffsappeared as Pw2 and PW3 respectively Z Jarnail Singh P W 21 who was also in truck NoHPG873 along with Parkash Chand when the accident had taken place had Iodgedreport for rash and negligentdriving against Ram Chand driver of truck NoGTX8228 As noticed above the surveyor of the Insurance Company had himself assessed the damage at Rsel070001Nhich arnount was claimed by the plaintiffs along with interest in the instant suit as the Insurance Company did not pay the amount in spite of the plaintiffs completingallthe necessary formalities requiredfor the purpose It was inter alia on the basis of above evidence that both the Courts below decreed the suit of . Rashmi 2012.05.26 10: 17 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 1 04 ReaularSecond Appeal Nos 413 of 1988 l 1 for recovery of the aforesaid amount 1 the the Insurance Company The findings recorded by both theCourts below are the findingsof fact It cannot be said that 1 of both the Courts below are based on misreading of 1 the 1 m evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into 1 1 consideration 0 1 Ca3 Under the circumstances I do not find any patent 1 1 I in the findings recorded by the Courts below 1 C5 illegalityor I which may give rise to any substantialquestionof Iaw in the present e herebydismissed being appeal Resultantly this appeal IS Z r without any merit r r I PALO t Februaryl7 2011e JUDGE 1 Z ak m 1 7 Z 1 0m 0 1 1 1 1 . Rashmi 2012.05.26 10: 17 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document