Ram Chander Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.

Ram Chander vs Naresh Kumar and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 22, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/619699

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/619699
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Jawahar Lal Gupta and; N.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 22, 1999
Case Number: F.A.F.O. No. 65 of 1999 and Civil Misc. No. 1575-CII of 1999
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly con...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 146 and 157

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Chander

Advocate B.S. Walia, Adv.

Respondent

Naresh Kumar and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 146 and 157
Cases Referred: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sheela Rani
Reported In: 2000ACJ727; AIR1999P& H219; (1999)122PLR46

Excerpt

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........the insurance company. still further, in the proceedings before the motor accident claims tribunal, the original owner, som nath, was not even impleaded as a party. neither the appellant nor his driver, naib singh, even entered the witness-box. in fact, even in the written statement filed by the appellant, it was not suggested that som nath was the owner of the truck.5. the factual position that emerges is that there was no contract between the appellant and the insurance company for indemnifying him for any injury to a third party. despite the lapse of more than eight months, the appellant took no step for the transfer of the policy or for getting a new policy. in this situation, the appellant has to thank himself for the finding of the tribunal that the insurance company is not liable to pay anycompensation.6. mr. walia, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the decision of their lordships of the supreme court in complete insulations (p) ltd. v. new india assurance company ltd., 1996 (112) pun lr 202 : (air 1996 sc 586), the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is clearly postulated under section 157 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short, the '1988 act'). he has also referred to the decision of the supreme court in new india assurance co. ltd. v. smt. sheela rani, (1998) 6 jt (sc) 388 : (air 1999 sc 56).7. we have perused these decisions. the factual position in both the cases was materially different. in both the cases, intimation regarding the transfer of the vehicle had been given to the insurance company. there was no refusal from the insurer regarding the transfer of the policy. in this situation, it was held that the insurance policy shall not lapse. such is not the position in the present case. it is admitted that no intimation as required under section 157 of the 1988 act had been given by the appellant to the insurance company. in such a situation, it cannot be presumed that the.....

Full Judgment

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. On February 22, 1997, Siri Pal alias Pala Ram, who was going on a bicycle, was hit by truck bearing Registration No. HYA-9416. The accident was fatal. The two sons of the deceased filed claimapplication. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has found that the deceased was aged about 57 years of age at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. l,500/- per month. By fixing the monthly dependency of Rs. 700/- and applying a multiplier of '10', the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 84,000/-. Another amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded on account of funeral and other incidental charges. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 89,000 was awarded by the Tribunal. Interest @ 2% per annum on this amount was also awarded.

2. Aggrieved by the award, Ram Chander, the owner of the vehicle, has filed the present appeal. It is urged that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the compensation shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle and not by the New India Assurance Company Ltd, Chandigarh-Respondent No. 4.

3. Mr. B. S. Walia, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the vehicle having been insured, the Insurance Company could not have been absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner for the death of a third party.

4. Admittedly, the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the appellant on May 30, 1996. It is also the admitted position that an insurance policy had been obtained by the original owner, Som Nath. However, no intimation regarding the transfer of the truck or for the transfer of the policy was given by the appellant to the Insurance Company. Still further, in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the original owner, Som Nath, was not even impleaded as a party. Neither the appellant nor his driver, Naib Singh, even entered the witness-box. In fact, even in the written statement filed by the appellant, it was not suggested that Som Nath was the owner of the truck.

5. The factual position that emerges is that there was no contract between the appellant and the Insurance Company for indemnifying him for any injury to a third party. Despite the lapse of more than eight months, the appellant took no step for the transfer of the policy or for getting a new policy. In this situation, the appellant has to thank himself for the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay anycompensation.

6. Mr. Walia, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 1996 (112) Pun LR 202 : (AIR 1996 SC 586), the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is clearly postulated under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the '1988 Act'). He has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sheela Rani, (1998) 6 JT (SC) 388 : (AIR 1999 SC 56).

7. We have perused these decisions. The factual position in both the cases was materially different. In both the cases, intimation regarding the transfer of the vehicle had been given to the Insurance Company. There was no refusal from the insurer regarding the transfer of the policy. In this situation, it was held that the insurance policy shall not lapse. Such is not the position in the present case. It is admitted that no intimation as required under Section 157 of the 1988 Act had been given by the appellant to the Insurance Company. In such a situation, it cannot be presumed that the liability to indemnify the owner stood transferred from Som Nath to the present appellant.

8. Mr. Walia contends that the risk in respect of third party shall still be deemed to be covered by virtue of the provisions of Section 146 of the 1988 Act. The contention is misconceived. This provision contains a prohibition. It debars an owner from using a vehicle till he has obtained a policy in accordance with the requirements of Chapter XI of the 1988 Act. It does not give a right to an owner who has failed to comply with the provisions of law to claim indemnification from the Insurance Company in respect of the injury or death caused by his negligence to a third party.

9. No other point has been raised.

10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, consequently, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1999 Same Parties Ram Chander vs Naresh Kumar and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Jawahar Lal Gupta and; N.K. Agrawal, JJ. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 146 and 157

Motor Vehicles