C.R. No.4714 of 1996 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4714 of 1996 (O & M) Date of decision: 01.11.2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited .... Petitioner Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S. Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main revision petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The insurance company is aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, whereby Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the damage to the truck bearing registration No.HNT-3515. Out of the said amount, Rs.6000/- was held to be payable by the Insurance Company whereas Rs.4000/- was treated to be the liability of respondent No.3- Binder Singh @ Dadu Singh and respondent No.4-Subhash Chander. The Insurance Company feeling aggrieved against the liability of Rs.6000/- has approached this Court. C.R. No.4714 of 1996 (O & M) ::2:: 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may be noticed as under:- 4. Truck No.HNT-3515 which was owned by Rajinder Kumar and was insured with Oriental Insurance Company, was proceeding from Hansi to Hisar and was being driven by Bharat Singh. Truck bearing No.HRF-5665 which was owned by respondent No.4-Subhash Chander was being driven by respondent No.3-Binder Singh and it was insured with the petitioner-Company. The trucks which were coming from opposite directions, met with an accident at 10.30 p.m. on 14.12.1992 between Hansi and Hisar. As a result of which, both the trucks suffered damage and Bharat Singh (driver of truck No.HNT-3515) received fatal injuries and died. 5. MACT case No. 41 was preferred by Rajinder Kumar (owner of the truck bearing No. HNT-3515) wherein compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- had been claimed by him for the loss caused to the truck due to extensive damage. 6. After consolidating other claim petitions as well, upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HRF- 5665 by Binder Singh respondent No.1 or truck No.HNT-3515 by Bharat Singh since deceased ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom ? OPP. 3. Relief. 7. While adjudicating issue No.1, it was recorded that the C.R. No.4714 of 1996 (O & M) ::3:: accident was not result of negligent driving by Bharat Singh, driver and, in fact, it was due to rash and negligent driving of driver Binder @ Dadu Singh of the truck belonging to Subhash Chander. The same was decided in favour of the claimants as also Rajinder Kumar. However, while adjudicating issue No.2 the claim of the petitioner- Rajinder Kumar whereby he claimed compensation on account of damage to the truck amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, the same was restricted to Rs.10,000/-. It was, however, ordered to be paid as noticed above. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously in the absence of any evidence regarding damage caused to the truck owned by respondent No.2-Rajinder Kumar, directed the aforesaid payment of Rs.10,000/- out of which the liability to pay Rs.6000/- has been imposed on the petitioner- Insurance Company. 9. After perusal of the record and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is not disputed that accident had taken place in which the truck bearing No. HNT-3515 belonging to Rajinder Kumar had suffered damage and while deciding issue No.1 it was recorded by the Tribunal that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck belonging to Sh.Subhash Chander, and there was no negligence on the part of Bharat Singh, driver of the truck belonging to Rajinder Kumar. The Tribunal after examining the evidence on the record held that the claimant-owner of the truck Rajinder Singh was entitled to Rs.10,000/- as damage to the truck. After bifurcating the liability between the Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the C.R. No.4714 of 1996 (O & M) ::4:: truck No.HRF-5665, the Insurance Company has been held liable for Rs.6000/- only. 10. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal passed the award in the absence of evidence, as regards the amount of Rs.6000/- to be paid by the petitioner-Insurance Company out of the total claim amount of Rs.10,000/-. No illegality or perversity could be projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the award of the Tribunal and the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 11. Dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 01, 2011 sukhpreet