F.A.O. No. 5180 of 2011 (O&M). Case: The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Santosh and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | F.A.O. No. 5180 of 2011 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Deepak Suri, Advocate |
| Judges | Anita Chaudhry, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 15, 8, 9 |
| Judgement Date | January 30, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Anita Chaudhry, J.
CM-19706-CII-2011
-
Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein.
-
Delay of 40 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
F.A.O. No. 5180 of 2011
-
Before the issue raised in the appeal is dealt with, a brief resume of the facts are required to be noticed.
-
A claim petition had been filed by Balwan Singh son of Chandi Ram seeking compensation for the injuries received by him in an accident which occurred on 27/28.9.2005. He along with Rajbir Singh were returning to their village on a tractor driven by Rajbir Singh from the liquor vend where Balwan Singh was working. At about 11.45 P.M. they had reached near the Reliance Petrol Pump, Rajgarh road when the offending truck driven by respondent No. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and struck into the tractor. Due to the accident, the excel tube of the tractor broke and the claimant and other occupants fell on the road and received injuries. A claim petition was filed by Balwan Singh. However, during the pendency of the petition he died and his widow represented him.
-
The plea set-up by the wife was Balwan had died on account of the injuries received by him in the accident was disputed by the other side. There was no evidence to show that he had become permanently disabled as no disability certificate was filed. There was no post-mortem report. Therefore it was held that the legal heir was not entitled to the compensation for the death. However, a claim of Rs. 23,201/- was allowed for the amount spent on the treatment and transportation etc.
-
The insurance company had taken the plea that respondent No. 1 had not renewed his licence and therefore they should be absolved from their liability. The Tribunal recorded the finding in para 14 of the judgment which reads as under:-
So far as liability to pay compensation is concerned, admittedly, offending truck on the day of accident was having valid and effective insurance policy Ex. R2. The counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued on the day of accident, the licence Ex. R1 pertaining to respondent No. 1 was not renewed as verification report Ex. P3. The respondent No. 3 cannot wriggle out from its own document Ex. R3. As per this document driving licence of the respondent was renewed with effect from 7.10.2005 to 6.10.2008 whereas the accident took place on 27/28.9.2005. On which particular day the licencing authority Churu (Rajasthan) received application from the respondent No. 1 to renew...
To continue reading
Request your trial