Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manjit Kumar and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127586
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantReliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentManjit Kumar and Others
Excerpt:
fao-1912-2012 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao-1912-2012 (o&m) date of decision:10. 02.2014 reliance general insurance co. ltd. ...appellant versus manjit kumar and others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice jitendra chauhan present: mr. tk joshi, advocate for the appellant. mr. s.k. yadav, advocate for respondent no.1. mr. jp sharma, advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. jitendra chauhan, j.(oral) 1. delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. the present appeal has been filed by the appellant- insurance company, challenging the impugned award dated 14.11.2011, passed by the learned motor accident claims tribunal, narnaul, (for short, 'the tribunal').3. it is contended that the learned tribunal erred in accepting the claim petition by ignoring the fact that there is a delay of 12 days in lodging the fir. the accident took place on 7.09.2009, whereas the fir was registered on 19.09.2009. the sethi atul 2014.02.19 09:42 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh fao-1912-2012 -2- claimant had been discharged on 14.09.2009. it is further contended that the amount paid under the head of non-pecuniary expenses to the extent of rs.2.20 lacs, is on the higher side.4. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has opposed the present appeal.5. this court has heard the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.6. it is a matter of record that the accident took place on 07.09.2009, whereas the fir was registered on 19.09.2009, however, there is nothing on record that the claimant introduced some new facts. the claimant-appellant, pw-2, filed affidavit, ex.pw-2a, before the learned tribunal and reiterated the same by asserting that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2. the appellant was 22 years of age. from the perusal of ex.p-1, the disability certificate, it is evident that he suffered permanent disability of 22%. he suffered fractures of right tibia and fibula and right ankle joint. in the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that nothing has come on record that the claimant tried to introduce false version, the delay in lodging the fir is not sufficient to deny the claim of the injured when the accident and the injuries suffered, are proved on record. similarly, the compensation awarded towards the non-pecuniary expenses also cannot be said to be on the higher side. sethi atul 2014.02.19 09:42 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh fao-1912-2012 -3- 7. in view of the above discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.8. the statutory amount of rs.25,000/-, deposited by the appellant-insurance company be placed at the disposal of the tribunal for reimbursement. 10.02.2014 ( jitendra chauhan) atulsethi judge note : whether to be referred to reporter : yes / no.sethi atul 2014.02.19 09:42 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

FAO-1912-2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1912-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:

10. 02.2014 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Manjit Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. TK Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. JP Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

(ORAL) 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company, challenging the impugned Award dated 14.11.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (for short, 'the Tribunal').

3. It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in accepting the claim petition by ignoring the fact that there is a delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR. The accident took place on 7.09.2009, whereas the FIR was registered on 19.09.2009. The Sethi Atul 2014.02.19 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-1912-2012 -2- claimant had been discharged on 14.09.2009. It is further contended that the amount paid under the head of non-pecuniary expenses to the extent of Rs.2.20 lacs, is on the higher side.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has opposed the present appeal.

5. This Court has heard the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. It is a matter of record that the accident took place on 07.09.2009, whereas the FIR was registered on 19.09.2009, however, there is nothing on record that the claimant introduced some new facts. The claimant-appellant, PW-2, filed affidavit, Ex.PW-2A, before the learned Tribunal and reiterated the same by asserting that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The appellant was 22 years of age. From the perusal of Ex.P-1, the disability certificate, it is evident that he suffered permanent disability of 22%. He suffered fractures of right tibia and fibula and right ankle joint. In the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that nothing has come on record that the claimant tried to introduce false version, the delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to deny the claim of the injured when the accident and the injuries suffered, are proved on record. Similarly, the compensation awarded towards the non-pecuniary expenses also cannot be said to be on the higher side. Sethi Atul 2014.02.19 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-1912-2012 -3- 7. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

8. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company be placed at the disposal of the Tribunal for reimbursement. 10.02.2014 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No.Sethi Atul 2014.02.19 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh