FAO No.825 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.825 of 2011 Date of Decision : 27.01.2011 National Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Smt. Lajwanti and others .......Respondents AND FAO No.826 of 2011 National Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant Versus Vikas and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. FAO Nos.825 and 826 of 2011 arise out of the same award, so, both are being disposed of by this single judgment. However, the facts are being derived from FAO No.825 of 2011. 2. The appellant-National Insurance Company Limited (for short, ‘the Insurance Company’), has preferred this appeal against the 1 FAO No.825 of 2011 award dated 15.09.2010 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT case Nos.228 and 229 of 2008. 3. The brief facts of the case in hand are that on 3.3.2008, Kamal Kumar, the deceased, along with his friend, Vikas, had gone to Ambala on his motorcycle bearing No.HR07-H-6888. The deceased was driving the motorcycle whereas Vikas set on the pillion. On their way back to Kurukshetra, when they reached at Barara Chowk, Shahbad, at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased stopped the motorcycle due to the red signal on the crossing and was waiting for the signal to be green. In the meantime, a dumper (truck) bearing Temp. No.JH-05-A- 7770 (hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Satpal, the driver, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against the motorcycle resulting into multiple and grievous injuries to both the riders. After the accident, the driver fled away from the spot leaving the offending vehicle behind. Both the injured were removed to the Community Health Centre, Shahbad, where Kamal Kumar was declared brought dead and Vikas, injured (respondent No.1 in FAO No.826 of 2011), was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh, for further treatment. 4. Both the petitions have been contested by the respondents, who are the driver, owner and attorney of the driver wherein the factum of accident was admitted, however, it was inter alia pleaded that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. It was contended that due to the red 2 FAO No.825 of 2011 signal at the Barara Chowk, the deceased suddenly applied brakes which caused the accident. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and the driver was holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident. 5. The National Insurance Company, appellant herein, contested the petition on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective licence and that the same was being plied in violation with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 6. The New India Assurance Company took almost the similar stand as taken by the appellant herein. While denying the factum of accident, it was inter alia pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following consolidated issues were framed: - 1. Whether accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Vikas claimant suffered injuries in the accident in question, if so, what amount of compensation, he is entitled to? OPP 3. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Kamal Kumar Died as a result of injuries suffered by him in the accident in question, if so, what amount of compensation, the claimant Lajwanti is entitled to? OPP 3 FAO No.825 of 2011 4. Whether there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation? OPR-4 4-A Whether respondent No.5 insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation on the grounds averred in the written statement? OPR-5 5. Relief. 8. The learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.1, held that the accident in question took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by the driver-appellant herein. So, this issue was decided in favour of the claimants. While deciding Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of ` 2,50,000/- to the claimant Vikas (respondent No.1 in FAO No.826 of 2011) on account of various heads along with interest @ 9%. While deciding Issue No.3, Smt. Lajwanti, claimant (Respondent No.1 in FAO No.825 of 2011), was awarded an amount of ` 3,35,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. Issue No.4 was decided against respondent-Insurance Company (herein appellant), by holding that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant on the date of the accident and the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The liability was fixed jointly and severally. While deciding Issue No.4A, it was held that the New India Assurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. 9. Shri Suvir Dewan, Advocate, counsel for the appellant- National Insurance Company, submits that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The counsel further submits that there is no 4 FAO No.825 of 2011 liability of the appellant to indemnify the insured because the vehicle in question on the date of accident was in transit. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a violation of the Insurance Policy. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 11. The learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by Satpal @ Kala. Moreover, the factum of accident is admitted by the owner and driver of truck No.JH05-A-7770. When there is admission, no strict proof is required because the claims are summary proceedings. The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation to injured Vikas (respondent No.1 in FAO No.826 of 2011) and to the claimant, Smt. Lajwanti, widow (respondent No.1 in FAO No.825 of 2011) being the LR of Kamal Kumar, the deceased. Moreover, the Insurance Company cannot challenge the quantum of the compensation when its liability is proved and fixed by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-National Insurance Company vide Insurance Policy, Ex.R-1. The learned Tribunal has further rightly fixed the liability of the driver and the owner along with the Insurance company-appellant as joint and several. There is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel could not point out any legal or factual error in the award of the learned Tribunal. 12. Hence, this appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. 5 FAO No.825 of 2011 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 27.01.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 6