F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009
Date of decision: 11-12-2009
Oriental Insurance Company .........Appellants
Vs
Pyara Chand and others .........Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant.
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed by the Oriental Insurance Company
against the award dated 24.6.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, Haryana whereby he awarded an amount of
Rs.5,78,000/- in claim petition No. 59 of 2008 titled Pyara Chand and others
Vs. Daljit Singh and another, and also awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in
claim petition No. 60 of 2008 titled Pyara Chand Vs. Daljit Singh together
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the entire awarded amount.
The facts are these:
On 9.3.2008 Rama Devi and her husband Pyara Chand and
others were present in the main bazar Kalka near bus stand being in wait for
a bus for Dharampur. Around 4.30 p.m., a Tata Safari bearing registration
No. CH03Y-2242 came from Shimla side being driven by Daljit Singh
respondent rashly and negligently and at a very high speed although a
number of persons were present in the bazar. The Tata Safari hit against
F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 2
Pyara Chand, his wife Ram Devi and many other persons by going on the
extreme wrong side of the road near the shops and as a result thereof 10-12
persons including Pyara Chand and Ram Devi suffered injuries. Rama Devi
succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The injured persons were taken to
Civil Hospital, Kalka.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the
application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the
Insurance Company on 22.2.2008 copy of which is Annexure A-1. The
learned Tribunal without disposing it off, has passed the impugned award.
He further puts that in re:Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs.
S.Rajapriya and Others 2005(2) Punjab Law Reporter 650 the Apex court
reduced the multiplier from 16 to 12 as age of the deceased was 38 whereas
in the instant one, the multiplier of 16 has been applied though the age of
the deceased was also 38 years. Furthermore, a careful delving into the
impugned award would reveal that 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of
the deceased has not been reduced from her monthly income.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these
submissions.
In Annexure A-1 the copy of the application purportedly moved
by the Appellant insurance company under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, it has been mentioned with specificity that “Respondent has
colluded with the claimant and claim is not being contested by taking proper
defences as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, to protect
F.A.O. No. 5760 of 2009 3
the interest of the applicant, the applicant may be allowed to take all such
defences which are available to the other respondents against the claimants
under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.” It is beyond
comprehension as to how the learned Tribunal had proceeded to decide the
claim petition without passing any order on this application. If the same
had been allowed only then the respondent insurance company could have
taken all such defences as were available to the other respondents against
the claimants. Without being permitted to take all such defences, the
appellant could not conduct the case in a manner as desired by law. It
should have been decided one way or the other. Such being the
circumstances, the impugned award is set aside with a direction to the
learned Tribunal to dispose of the said application and decide the matter
afresh, after procuring the presence of the claimants as well as the
respondent Daljeet Singh. The appellant shall put in appearance through its
counsel before the learned Tribunal on 15.1.2010.
(HARBANS LAL)
JUDGE
December 11, 2009
RSK
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No