In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
F.A.O. No. 4126 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 24, 2009
Sardari Lal and others
.. Appellants
Vs.
Ranjit Singh and others
.. Respondents
F.A.O. No.4127 of 2007 (O&M)
Sushma and others
.. Appellants
Vs.
Ranjit Singh and others
.. Respondents
F.A.O. No. 4128 of 2007 (O&M)
Sunil Kumar
.. Appellant
Vs.
Ranjit Singh and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
A.N. Jindal, J
This judgment of mine shall dispose of three connected appeals
i.e. F.A.O. Nos. 4126, 4127 and 4128 of 2007, having arisen out of the
judgment dated 5.5.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ambala, awarding compensation as under :-
MACT No.60 of 17.5.01, Sardari Lal and others vs. Ranjit Singh and others
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Rs.50,000/- on account of no fault liability.
F.A.O. No. 4126 of 2007,
F.A.O. No.4127 of 2007 &
F.A.O. No. 4128 of 2007 -2-
MACT No.20 of 22.3.01 Sushma and another vs. Ranjit Singh and others
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Rs.4,37,932/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
MACT No.130 of 9.8.02/19.5.01, Sunil Kumar vs. Yashpal and others
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
It was dismissed on the ground that it was filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and it was observed by the Tribunal that the
respondent No.2 (driver) was not negligent, therefore, the respondents could
not be held liable for any compensation.
The appellants have raised variety of contentions for treating
the claim petition of Sunil Kumar under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicle Act and also that Satpal Singh driver of the offending truck was
negligent, but no merit could be found in the same.
It has also been contended by the respondents that the owner of
the car being necessary party should have been impleaded as party. In this
regard it may be observed that since the driver of the offending truck was
not negligent in causing the accident, therefore, is not a necessary party.
Records further reveal that the Tribunal appears to have rightly
dismissed the claim petition filed by Sunil Kumar as he could not claim
compensation as the accident took place on account of the fault on the part
of Parbodh Kumar @ Parmod Kumar driver of the car bearing registration
No.PB-6B-5161 in which the claimant was travelling. As such, the petition
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by Sunil Kumar could not
be maintained against the respondents particularly when driver of the truck
bearing registration No.PB-12B-9899 was not negligent.
Now coming to the claim petition No.60 of 17.5.2001 titled as
Sardari Lal and others vs. Ranjit Singh and others, since it was third party
policy, therefore, it was Parbodh Kumar @ Parmod Kumar driver/owner of
the car, therefore, on account of third party insurance, his legal heirs could
not claim any compensation.
Now coming to claim petition No.20 of 22.3.2001 titled as
Sushma and others vs. Ranjit Singh and others, the claimant has set up the
case that Ramesh Kumar was 30 years old and was earning Rs.20,000/- per
F.A.O. No. 4126 of 2007,
F.A.O. No.4127 of 2007 &
F.A.O. No. 4128 of 2007 -3-
month. Thus, it was urged that the claimant should have been awarded
compensation on the higher rate.
Without going deep into the merits, while taking the income of
Ramesh Kumar as Rs.20,000/- per month, the claim petition under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act could not be maintained, but as I am not
sitting over the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, the
question regarding the maintainability of the petition is not decided.
However, without commenting further, it would be suffice to say that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is already on the higher side.
Resultantly, all the three claim petitions being without any
merit are hereby dismissed.
August 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge