IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) F.A.O. No. 155 of 1989
Mohan Lal alias Mohni.
....... Appellant through Shri
H.S.Bajwa, Advocate.
Versus
Amarpreet Singh and others.
....... Respondent no.1 through
Nemo.
Respondent no.2 through
Shri H.S.Dhandi, Advocate.
Respondent no.3 through
Shri N.K.Khosla, Advocate.
(2) F.A.O. No. 327 of 1989
Amarpreet Singh.
....... Appellant through Nemo.
Versus
Mohan Lal alias Mohni and others.
....... Respondent no.1 through
Shri H.S.Bajwa, Advocate.
Respondent no.2 through
Shri H.S.Dhandi, Advocate.
Respondent no.3 through
Shri N.K.Khosla, Advocate.
Date of Decision: 5.12.2008
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
-2-
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals
which have been directed against award dated 29.10.1988 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short, `the Tribunal’) in
M.A.C.T. Case No.10/Add. of 22.2.1988.
In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.10.1987,
Amarpreet Singh sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition and the
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.88500/- to him along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 18.2.1988, i.e., the date of filing
of the claim petition, till realization, under the following heads:-
1. Pain and agony and on account of
50% permanent partial disability
and loss of enjoyment of life = Rs.50,000.00
2. Treatment and medicines = Rs.13500.00
3. Conveyance charges = Rs. 1750.00
4. Expenses of attendants = Rs. 3000.00
5. Wages to be incurred on
tractor driver = Rs.19200.00
Total = Rs.88450.00
This sum was rounded off to Rs.88500/-.
Mohan Lal alias Mohni was held liable to satisfy the award.
Mohan Lal alias Mohni has filed F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
challenging his liability as fixed by the Tribunal, whereas Amarpreet Singh
has preferred F.A.O.No.327 of 1989 for enhancement of the compensation
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
-3-
….
granted to him.
The only question that requires determination in F.A.O.No.155
of 1989 is as to whether or not appellant-Mohan Lal, who was the
subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle from its original owner –
Sher Singh, was liable to satisfy the award or it should be the insurance
company with whom the offending vehicle was insured.
Learned counsel for appellant-Mohan Lal contended that
concededly the offending vehicle was purchased by Mohan Lal from Sher
Singh and the same was insured. He further contended that in view of this,
the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on Mohan Lal to satisfy the
award on the premise that the intimation of the transfer of the offending
vehicle had not been given to the insurance company.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company
has contended that the award of the Tribunal is perfectly valid and since no
intimation was given to insurance company, no liability could be fastened
on it.
Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and
having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by
the Tribunal in so far as the liability is concerned, is erroneous for two
reasons – (i) the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove that
the intimation about the transfer of the offending vehicle had not been given
to it, and (ii) even if the intimation had not been given, it would have been
of no consequence as the liability of the insurer towards third party cannot
be absolved in view of the provisions of Sections 94 and 95 of the Motor
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
-4-
….
Vehicles Act,1939.
While dealing with the similar question, their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Shimla Versus Tilak
Singh and others, 2006(2) P.L.R. 297 (S.C.), observed in paragraphs 9 and
13 of the judgment as under:-
“9. Citing with approval the judgment of the Full Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madineni Kondajah and others
Versus Yaseen Fatima and others, AIR 1986 A.P. 62, and
contrasting the provisions of Section 103-A of the 1939 Act
with Section 157 of the 1988 Act, thisCourt said in Complete
Insulations Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (1996-1) 112
P.L.R. 202 (S.C.) = (1996) 1 S.C.C. 211, (vide para 6)
`Now, under the Old Act although the insurer could
refuse to transfer the certificate of insurance in certain
circumstances and the transfer was not automatic as
under the new Act, there was under the old law
protection to third parties, that is victim of the
accident. The protection was available by virtue of
Sections 94 and 95 of the old Act.”
13. Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the
failure of the transfer to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer
of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether
under Section 103-A of the 1939 Act or under Section 157 of
the 1988 Act in so far as the liability towards a third party is
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989-5-
….
concerned. Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before
us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party
was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the
contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either
way,making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for
deciding the second issue. However, it may be necessary to
decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In
our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident
which furnishes the cause of action for the application before
the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the accident took place after the
1988 Act had come into force. Hence, it is the 1988 Act which
would govern the situation.”
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, which has
been reproduced above, the appeal of Mohan Lal deserves to be accepted as
the finding recorded by the Tribunal making him liable to satisfy the award
cannot be sustained.
In so far as F.A.O.No.327 of 1989 is concerned, it has come in
the statement of AW1-Dr.Shiv Shakti Dhawan,Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Hoshiarpur, that Amarpreet Singh suffered the following injuries:-
“1. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep obliquely over
the bridge of the nose. Advised x-ray nose.
2. Two abrasions 5 cm x .5 cm on the front in the middle at 2 cm
apart running vertically on the forehead.
3. Bleeding from both the nostrils present.
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
-6-
….
4. A raddish abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of right elbow.
5. A lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm on front of right leg in its
upper 1/3rd.
6. A raddish abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm irregular on the front of
right leg in its upper 1/3rd.
7. A raddish abrasion 8 cm x 6 cm irregular on the medial side
of left thigh in its lower 1/3rd.
8. A raddish contusion 8 cm x 4 cm on the front of right thigh in
its lower 1/3rd.
9. A lacerated wound 4 cm 1.5 cm x muscle deep on the left
side of face, just lateral to the angle of the mouth on the left
side running downward obliquely. Bleeding present.”
AW6- Dr.Lajpat Rai of Christian Medical College,Ludhiana
stated that Amarpreet Singh was admitted in their hospital under his care in
Neuro-surgical Service with the history of road traffic accident with the
following injuries:-
1. Closed head injury.
2. Cerebral contusion.
3. Fracture nasal bones.
4. Multiple laceration on face.
5. Fracture of both bones of right leg and fracture of left radius.
AW7-Dr.Rachhpal Singh had examined Amarpreet Singh to
ascertain the disability which he had suffered. After due examination, as per
this witness, Amarpreet Singh was found having 50% permanent partial
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
-7-
….
disability. AW7 further stated that on account of this disability, Amarpreet
Singh is not likely to drive a motor car or a tractor and he is not also capable
of running, but he can walk slowly to carry out his routine activities.
Having regard to the above mentioned evidence, in my view,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Amarpreet Singh is
inadequate.
As seen above, Amarpreet Singh has suffered injuries which
would have impact on his functioning for entire life.
In this view of the matter when Amarpreet Singh has suffered
50% permanent partial disability and the fact that it has nowhere come on
record that the same can be cured, it would be just and appropriate if the
principle of Rs.2000/- per percentage of the disability is adopted in the
instant case. Accordingly, Amarpreet Singh is awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- on account of disability having been suffered by him.
It is made clear that the aforesaid amount shall be in addition
to the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the heading
“Pain and agony and on account of 50% permanent partial disability and
loss of enjoyment of life.” The said amount of Rs.50,000/- will be treated
on account of pain & agony and loss of enjoyment of life.
The compensation awarded under the other heads does not
require any interference and is maintained.
In this way, Amarpreet Singh is held entitled to a total sum of
Rs.1,88,450/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,88,500/-, as compensation.
The enhanced compensation shall be payable to Amarpreet
F.A.O.No.155 of 1989
-8-
….
Singh along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of realisation.
The insurance company of the offending vehicle shall be liable
to pay the compensation and interest to Amarpreet Singh.
The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the
appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms.
December 05,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge