United India Insurance Company Vs. Roshan Lal and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1057011
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-19-2012
AppellantUnited India Insurance Company
RespondentRoshan Lal and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.1366 of 1995 date of decision: november 19, 2012 united india insurance company .petitioner versus roshan lal and others .respondents civil revision no.1275 of 1995 united india insurance company .petitioner versus parshotam lal and others .respondents f.a.o.no.721 of 1995 united india insurance company .appellant versus dalip singh and others .respondents f.a.o.no.722 of 1995 united india insurance company .petitioner versus dharam pal and others .respondents. coram: hon'ble mr.justice a.n.jindal present: mr.vinot chaudhari, advocate for the insurance company. none for the respondents. a.n.jindal, j this judgment shall dispose of four connected matters i.e.civil revision nos.1275 and 1366 of 1995 and f.a.o.nos.721 and 722 of 1995, arising out of the common order and involving the similar question of civil revision no.1366 of 1995 -2- *** law. the factual matrix of the case is that on the death of randhir singh and injuries to dharam pal and parshotam lal and damage to the three wheeler bearing registration not hne-2018, mact case no.16 of 1992, titled as dalip singh and another versus mohinder singh and others.no.20 of 1992, roshan lal and another versus mohinder singh and others.no.21 of 1992, parshotam lal versus mohinder singh and others and no.48 of 1992 dharam pal versus mohinder singh and others were filed. in all the four claim petitions, the following awards were passed:- mact case no.16 of 1992 compensation to the tune of rs.1,34,400/- on account of the death of randhir singh. mact case no.20 of 1992 compensation to the tune of rs.6,000/- due to damage to the three wheeler not hne-2018. mact case no.21 of 1992 compensation to the tune of rs.2,500/- due to the injuries suffered by the claimant- parshotam lal. mact case no.48 of 1992 compensation to the tune of rs.10,000/- due to the injuries suffered by the claimant- dharam pal. the tribunal had further held that the compensation would be payable by the petitioner-company along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization. as the parties were at issues, therefore, the tribunal, framed the following issues :- 1. whether the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?.opp 2. in case issue no.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the petitioners in each case entitled and from whom?.”3. relief. civil revision no.1366 of 1995 -3- *** after collecting the evidence, the tribunal decided issue no.1 in favour of the claimants and while deciding issue no.2, the tribunal ordered that the claimants were entitled to the amount as detailed above and it was only the petitioner being insurer would be liable to discharge the liability. without challenging the findings on both the issues, the learned counsel has urged that since the respondent driver was not holding a valid driving licence for driving the truck bearing registration not hrl-1845, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. having heard the rival contentions, it is noticed that the insurance company may not be so serious in raising such contention as it did not press for framing of any such issue and also did not lead sufficient evidence to enable the court to hold that mohinder singh driver was not holding a valid driving licence. the insurance company has also relied upon the report of the mahesh thaliyal, assistant administrative officer, who has stated that as per his enquiry the licence ex.r2, initially relied upon by the respondent driver was fake one. actually, the respondent driver was holding two driving licences. there is no challenge to the licence bearing not m-6904/82 dated 20.12.1982 being fake. however, contention is regarding the second driving licence. as a matter of fact, the mode of proving the licence issued by the licensing authority, cuttack as fake was to examine a person from the licensing authority, cuttack in order to show if the said licence was never issued. no attempt was made to disprove the licence allegedly issued by the r.t.a.delhi i.e.firs.licence. as such in the absence of any cogent evidence that the licence issued by the r.t.a.cuttack was fake and also in the light of the licence ex.r1, which was not challenged, not merit could be found in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. as regards the quantum of compensation, on scrutiny of the entire evidence, it appears that the tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased and injured in right perspective and reasonable compensation was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured and also sufficient civil revision no.1366 of 1995 -4- *** compensation was awarded for damage of the vehicle. no grounds to interfere. consequently, both the appeals as well as the petitions are dismissed. november 19, 2012 (a.n.jindal) deepak judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1366 of 1995 Date of decision: November 19, 2012 United India Insurance Company .Petitioner versus Roshan Lal and others .Respondents Civil Revision No.1275 of 1995 United India Insurance Company .Petitioner versus Parshotam Lal and others .Respondents F.A.O.No.721 of 1995 United India Insurance Company .Appellant versus Dalip Singh and others .Respondents F.A.O.No.722 of 1995 United India Insurance Company .Petitioner versus Dharam Pal and others .Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal Present: Mr.Vinot Chaudhari, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

None for the respondents.

A.N.Jindal, J This judgment shall dispose of four connected matters i.e.Civil Revision Nos.1275 and 1366 of 1995 and F.A.O.Nos.721 and 722 of 1995, arising out of the common order and involving the similar question of Civil Revision No.1366 of 1995 -2- *** law.

The factual matrix of the case is that on the death of Randhir Singh and injuries to Dharam Pal and Parshotam Lal and damage to the three wheeler bearing registration not HNE-2018, MACT Case No.16 of 1992, titled as Dalip Singh and another versus Mohinder Singh and otheRs.No.20 of 1992, Roshan Lal and another versus Mohinder Singh and otheRs.No.21 of 1992, Parshotam Lal versus Mohinder Singh and others and No.48 of 1992 Dharam Pal versus Mohinder Singh and others were filed.

In all the four claim petitions, the following awards were passed:- MACT Case No.16 of 1992 Compensation to the tune of Rs.1,34,400/- on account of the death of Randhir Singh.

MACT Case No.20 of 1992 Compensation to the tune of Rs.6,000/- due to damage to the three wheeler not HNE-2018.

MACT Case No.21 of 1992 Compensation to the tune of Rs.2,500/- due to the injuries suffered by the claimant- Parshotam Lal.

MACT Case No.48 of 1992 Compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- due to the injuries suffered by the claimant- Dharam Pal.

The Tribunal had further held that the compensation would be payable by the petitioner-company along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization.

As the parties were at issues, therefore, the Tribunal, framed the following issues :- 1.

Whether the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?.OPP 2.

In case issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the petitioners in each case entitled and from whom?.”

3. Relief.

Civil Revision No.1366 of 1995 -3- *** After collecting the evidence, the Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and while deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal ordered that the claimants were entitled to the amount as detailed above and it was only the petitioner being insurer would be liable to discharge the liability.

Without challenging the findings on both the issues, the learned counsel has urged that since the respondent driver was not holding a valid driving licence for driving the truck bearing registration not HRL-1845, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

Having heard the rival contentions, it is noticed that the Insurance Company may not be so serious in raising such contention as it did not press for framing of any such issue and also did not lead sufficient evidence to enable the court to hold that Mohinder Singh driver was not holding a valid driving licence.

The Insurance Company has also relied upon the report of the Mahesh Thaliyal, Assistant Administrative Officer, who has stated that as per his enquiry the licence Ex.R2, initially relied upon by the respondent driver was fake one.

Actually, the respondent driver was holding two driving licences.

There is no challenge to the licence bearing not M-6904/82 dated 20.12.1982 being fake.

However, contention is regarding the second driving licence.

As a matter of fact, the mode of proving the licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack as fake was to examine a person from the Licensing Authority, Cuttack in order to show if the said licence was never issued.

No attempt was made to disprove the licence allegedly issued by the R.T.A.Delhi i.e.fiRs.licence.

As such in the absence of any cogent evidence that the licence issued by the R.T.A.Cuttack was fake and also in the light of the licence Ex.R1, which was not challenged, not merit could be found in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.

As regards the quantum of compensation, on scrutiny of the entire evidence, it appears that the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased and injured in right perspective and reasonable compensation was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured and also sufficient Civil Revision No.1366 of 1995 -4- *** compensation was awarded for damage of the vehicle.

No grounds to interfere.

Consequently, both the appeals as well as the petitions are dismissed.

November 19, 2012 (A.N.Jindal) deepak Judge