Present:- Mr. Prem Singh Bhangu Advocate Vs. National Insurance Co. and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1122497
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-20-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr. Prem Singh Bhangu Advocate
RespondentNational Insurance Co. and Others
Excerpt:
fao no.323 of 1998 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.323 of 1998 (o&m) date of decision: january 20, 2014 bhupinder singh ...appellant versus national insurance co.and others ...respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice k. kannan present:- mr.prem singh bhangu, advocate, for the appellant. mr.jagjit singh chathrath, advocate, for mr.ashwani talwar, advocate, for respondent no.1.k.kannan, j. (oral) the appeal is at the instance of the claimant, whose claim petition was dismissed. he was driving a maruti car and dashed against a tractor which was going ahead of him on a state highway. the contention was that the driver of the tractor had suddenly applied brakes and he could not have anticipated the same and there was no negligence which could be attributed to the claimant. the tribunal rejected this contention and held that if the the tractor had applied brake cannot be expected to apply any caution more than the application of brake and it is only the driver of the vehicle which was coming behind who must have taken appropriate caution not to come with collision with the vehicle going ahead of him. although vehement argument is made that the driver of the car cannot be expected to be imagining that the tractor will apply brake and if at all there must be apportionment of negligence between the driver of the tractor and himself, i would find such argument to invert the logic of what is normally to be singh prem 2014.01.23 14:39 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh fao no.323 of 1998 2 applied in such a situation. a vehicle that is going while applying brake is only expected to see what is going before him for application of brake and a person who is coming behind must always allow for such a proper distance that gives sufficient time to stop his own vehicle and prevent a collision with a vehicle going ahead of him. if the tribunal has, therefore, found no reason to apportion any part of the liability to the driver of the vehicle, i will not modify the same. counsel for the appellant rely on united india insurance co.ltd.versus mohanan 2012 (2) rcr (civil) 378 i will find these instances as giving rise to pure factual consideration and i will not see this to be point of law emanating in a situation to be applied. in this case, the disability that has been assessed for the injury caused was 10%. i will not find a reason to apply the scales either under section 163-a or 166 of the motor vehicles act, but i will take this to be an accident that was by the negligence of the appellant that will still leave a trail of compensation under no fault regime under section 140 that gives rise to a permanent disability. the maximum compensation at the time when the accident had taken place was rs.7500/- which right the appellant will have as a right to be provided and enforcement that he could obtain against the owner of the tractor and the insurer. the right of enforcement of the award of rs.7500/- with interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment shall be borne by the insurer of the tractor. the award is modified and the appeal is allowed only to the above extent. january 20, 2014 (k.kannan) prem judge singh prem 2014.01.23 14:39 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

FAO No.323 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.323 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: January 20, 2014 Bhupinder Singh ...Appellant Versus National Insurance Co.and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN Present:- Mr.Prem Singh Bhangu, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Jagjit Singh Chathrath, Advocate, for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1.K.KANNAN, J.

(Oral) The appeal is at the instance of the claimant, whose claim petition was dismissed.

He was driving a maruti car and dashed against a tractor which was going ahead of him on a State Highway.

The contention was that the driver of the tractor had suddenly applied brakes and he could not have anticipated the same and there was no negligence which could be attributed to the claimant.

The Tribunal rejected this contention and held that if the the tractor had applied brake cannot be expected to apply any caution more than the application of brake and it is only the driver of the vehicle which was coming behind who must have taken appropriate caution not to come with collision with the vehicle going ahead of him.

Although vehement argument is made that the driver of the car cannot be expected to be imagining that the tractor will apply brake and if at all there must be apportionment of negligence between the driver of the tractor and himself, I would find such argument to invert the logic of what is normally to be Singh Prem 2014.01.23 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.323 of 1998 2 applied in such a situation.

A vehicle that is going while applying brake is only expected to see what is going before him for application of brake and a person who is coming behind must always allow for such a proper distance that gives sufficient time to stop his own vehicle and prevent a collision with a vehicle going ahead of him.

If the Tribunal has, therefore, found no reason to apportion any part of the liability to the driver of the vehicle, I will not modify the same.

Counsel for the appellant rely on United India Insurance Co.LTD.Versus Mohanan 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 378 I will find these instances as giving rise to pure factual consideration and I will not see this to be point of law emanating in a situation to be applied.

In this case, the disability that has been assessed for the injury caused was 10%.

I will not find a reason to apply the scales either under Section 163-A or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but I will take this to be an accident that was by the negligence of the appellant that will still leave a trail of compensation under no fault regime under Section 140 that gives rise to a permanent disability.

The maximum compensation at the time when the accident had taken place was Rs.7500/- which right the appellant will have as a right to be provided and enforcement that he could obtain against the owner of the tractor and the insurer.

The right of enforcement of the award of Rs.7500/- with interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment shall be borne by the insurer of the tractor.

The award is modified and the appeal is allowed only to the above extent.

January 20, 2014 (K.KANNAN) prem JUDGE Singh Prem 2014.01.23 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh