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

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153894
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantReliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentParveen Kumar and Others
Excerpt:
archana arora fao no.4098 and 4099 of 2014(o&m) 2014.07.03 17:35 i am the author of this document in the high court of punjab & haryana, chandigarh fao no.4098 of 2014(o&m) date of decision : june 30, 2014 reliance general insurance co.ltd......appellant versus parveen kumar and others .......respondents fao no.4099 of 2014(o&m) reliance general insurance co.ltd......appellant versus smt. veena dua and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice k. kannan present:- mr.sanjeev kodan, advocate for the appellant. **** k. kannan, j (oral).cm nos.12173,12175-cii of 2014 there is a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal. for the reasons stated in the applications, applications are allowed. delay in filing the appeals is condoned. fao nos.4098 and 4099 of 2014 1. both the appeals are at the instance of the insurance company of the vehicle which was admittedly involved in the accident. the claimants were said to be passengers in a xylo car which had dashed against the insured's vehicle. the contention of the insurance company was that the insured's vehicle was fao no.4098 and 4099 of 2014(o&m) stationary and the accident had resulted out of the contributory negligence of the driver of the xylo car. the whole argument is on a wrong legal premise. as far as the passengers are concerned unless they had done some act which has contributed to the accident such as when any of the passengers had jumped out of the vehicle or had done any act which had contributed to the accident, it must always be taken only as composite negligence of the respective drivers of the two vehicles. in such an event the insurance company must have in its own interest seen that the owner and driver of the other vehicle was also impleaded to share the responsibility and for securing apportionment of the compensation as determined. if the same was not done the only benefit which the insurer would obtain would be to shoulder the liability and seek for contribution from the owner and driver of the vehicle who had allegedly contributed to the accident. the liability fastened on the insurance company cannot therefore be disputed. counsel relies on a judgment in raj rani versus oriental insurance co.ltd.2009 (7) scale 701 where the issue was with reference to alleged negligence of the vehicle which had been parked on the road. the court found that the deceased who was driving the vehicle and dashed against it was himself guilty of contributory negligence. what would apply to a driver of the vehicle who had caused a collision cannot apply to a passenger. while a driver could said to be guilty of contributory negligence, such contribution is not possible for a passenger. the decision relied on by the counsel is wholly misplaced. 2. the appeals by the insurance company are fao no.4098 and 4099 of 2014(o&m) dismissed. the insurance company will be at liberty to file its own independent suit to seek for contribution against the owner and driver to the extent to which the insurer can establish that the driver of the other car was guilty of rash and negligence. 3. with these observations the appeals are dismissed. (k. kannan) judge june 30 , 2014 archana
Judgment:

Archana arora FAO No.4098 and 4099 of 2014(O&M) 2014.07.03 17:35 I am the author of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.4098 of 2014(O&M) Date of decision : June 30, 2014 Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd......Appellant Versus Parveen Kumar and others .......Respondents FAO No.4099 of 2014(O&M) Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd......Appellant Versus Smt.

Veena Dua and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN Present:- Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the appellant.

**** K.

Kannan, J (oral).CM Nos.12173,12175-CII of 2014 There is a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the applications, applications are allowed.

Delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

FAO Nos.4098 and 4099 of 2014 1.

Both the appeals are at the instance of the Insurance Company of the vehicle which was admittedly involved in the accident.

The claimants were said to be passengers in a Xylo car which had dashed against the insured's vehicle.

The contention of the Insurance company was that the insured's vehicle was FAO No.4098 and 4099 of 2014(O&M) stationary and the accident had resulted out of the contributory negligence of the driver of the Xylo car.

The whole argument is on a wrong legal premise.

As far as the passengers are concerned unless they had done some act which has contributed to the accident such as when any of the passengers had jumped out of the vehicle or had done any act which had contributed to the accident, it must always be taken only as composite negligence of the respective drivers of the two vehicles.

In such an event the Insurance Company must have in its own interest seen that the owner and driver of the other vehicle was also impleaded to share the responsibility and for securing apportionment of the compensation as determined.

If the same was not done the only benefit which the insurer would obtain would be to shoulder the liability and seek for contribution from the owner and driver of the vehicle who had allegedly contributed to the accident.

The liability fastened on the Insurance company cannot therefore be disputed.

Counsel relies on a judgment in Raj Rani versus Oriental Insurance Co.LTD.2009 (7) Scale 701 where the issue was with reference to alleged negligence of the vehicle which had been parked on the road.

The court found that the deceased who was driving the vehicle and dashed against it was himself guilty of contributory negligence.

What would apply to a driver of the vehicle who had caused a collision cannot apply to a passenger.

While a driver could said to be guilty of contributory negligence, such contribution is not possible for a passenger.

The decision relied on by the counsel is wholly misplaced.

2.

The appeals by the Insurance Company are FAO No.4098 and 4099 of 2014(O&M) dismissed.

The insurance company will be at liberty to file its own independent suit to seek for contribution against the owner and driver to the extent to which the insurer can establish that the driver of the other car was guilty of rash and negligence.

3.

With these observations the appeals are dismissed.

(K.

KANNAN) JUDGE June 30 , 2014 archana