Suresh Kumar and Others v. Arun Kumar and Others

IN T

Suresh Kumar a Arun Kumar and

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The passed in claim 1988, by the le Tribunal') for e who are legal he FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Kumar was taki from Narnaul to Nayan, a stray d tried to save his and resultantly received multip seen by Chhaju

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Re Pro and Others

VERSUS d Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for r. Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Adv -.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal has been preferr petition filed under Sections 163 earned Motor Accident Claims enhancement of compensation g eirs of the deceased. N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on ing her sister Sudha @ Gayatri o Niyamatpur. At about 5/6:00 P dog came in front of the motorcy s motorcycle so that it did not s Gayatri @ Sudha (since deceas ple injuries including injuries on Ram and one Sanwat Ram. Sud

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-5192-2006 (O&M) served on : 20.11.2024 onounced on:-19.12.2024

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA r the appellants. vocate for respondent No.3. red against award dated 12.08.20 3-A/140 of the Motor Vehicles A Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, ' granted to the claimants/appella

11.05.2005, respondent No.1 A on motor cycle No.HR-35-B-68 PM, when they reached near vill ycle. Respondent No.1 Arun Kum strike the stray dog. It lost con sed) fell from the motor cycle n her head. The said accident w dha @ Gayatri was taken to Nan

Act, 'the nts, Arun age mar ntrol and was

Chaudhary for m she succumbed negligent drivin

3.

Up the factum of ac

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the lear alongwith inter present appeal f

medical aid and from there, she to her injuries on 12.05.2005. T ng of motorcycle by respondent N on notice of the claim petition, ccident/compensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether petitioners pr motor vehicle accident which 5/6:00 PM while she was No.HR-35-B-6878 as alleged

¶2Whether the petitioner deceased? OPP

¶3To what amount of co are entitled to and from whom

¶4Whether the petition is

¶5Whether respondent N effective driving licence on t

¶6Relief. ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens est @ 7% per annum. Hence for enhancement of compensation

was referred to SMS Jaipur, wh The accident occurred on accoun No.1. , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow rove that Sudha @ Gayatri died i h took place on 11.05.2005 at ab travelling on motor-cycle bear d? OPP rs are the LRs – dependants of ompensation, if any, the petition m? OPP s not maintainable? OPR No.1 was not having a valid the date of accident? OPR he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.2,24,11 the claimants/appellants filed n awarded by the Tribunal.

here nt of nied wing in a bout ring ners and on 12/-

SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea submissions:-

S OF THE LEARNED COUNS arned counsel for the claimants-

i) That the amount asse the lower side.

ii) That Section 163-A o substituted by Section 164 of of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022 enhanced as per the substitu 164 of the Act.

iii) That the present ca rendered by this Court in "Akaljit Kaur and Others V wherein the claim under Sec Act, 1988 was converted to 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f judgment of Hon'ble Suprem and others Vs. Punjab State 738] wherein it was held that Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 201 payment of compensation i Rs.5 lakhs and in the case of

iv) That the Tribunal h company from the liability ground that the deceased wa

SEL FOR THE PARTIES -appellants has made the follow ssed by the learned Tribunal is f Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is n f Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 2) and compensation should uted statutory provision i.e. Sect ase is covered by the judgm FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled Vs. Parveen Kumar and Other ction 163-A of the Motor Vehic Section 164 of Motor Vehicles A f 01.04.2022) by relying upon me Court in the case of Ram Mu e Electricity Board [2022(4) T t Section 164 of the Motor Vehic 19 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides n case of death in the amount f grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. has erred in absolving insura to pay the compensation on as a pillion rider and the policy

wing on now t 32 be tion ment d as rs." cles Act, urti TAC cles for t of ance

He of compensation

7.

Per however, vehem of compensatio Therefore, he pr

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

A p filed the claim p Gayatri, who wa in the absence awarded in the 1988 is now su 2019 w.e.f 01 substituted statu herein are entitl Parliament und compensation in of Rs.2.5 lakh.

10.

Fur and Others Vs.

question was statutory policy risk of death or bodily injury , therefore, prays that the presen n be enhanced. r contra, learned counsel for th mently argues that the award has n as assessed by the learned T rays for dismissal of appeal. have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award indicates th petition seeking compensation o as 35 years old, at the time of ac of any proof of notional incom interest of justice. Since Sect ubstituted by Section 164 of Mo .04.2022) and compensation utory provision i.e. Section 164 o led to be granted the benefit of b der Chapter 11 of which Secti n case of death in the amount of

rther, this Court in FAO No.430 Parveen Kumar and Others" he

y and this policy does not cover y to gratuitous passenger. nt appeal be allowed and the amo he respondent-Insurance Compa rightly been passed and the amo Tribunal has rightly been grant the parties and perused the wh hat in the present case the claima on account of the death of Sudha ccident. The Tribunal observed t me, a sum of Rs.2,24,112/-is to tion 163-A of Motor Vehicles A otor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 should be enhanced as per of the Act, therefore, the appella beneficial provision enacted by ion 164 provides for payment Rs.5 lakh and in case grievous h 01 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit Ka eld as under:-

ount any, ount ted. hole ants a @ that o be Act, 2 of ants t of hurt

"11 oth tha pro Sec dea Rs.

¶12Oth Mo go app cur loss lim by act inte The con

11.

In compensation to ratio as awarded

¶1Hon'ble Supreme Cou hers Vs. Punjab State Electricit at the appellants therein to be ovision enacted by the Parliam ction 164 provides for paymen ath in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs

2.5 lakhs.

This Court in FAO-hers Vs. Happy and Others, dec otor Vehicle statute is a beneficia into the technicalities of th plication or petition is moved bu ese are only the irregularities an red. It has been observed by th s caused to the claimants or the mb cannot be compensated. Still exercising its discretion empat tually be shown to be delivered b elligence, prudence, care and e Court decision should be such nfidence of public and litigants in view of the above, the claima o the tune of Rs.5 lakhs, which s d by the Tribunal in its award dat

urt in the case of Ram Murti a ty Board [2022(4) TAC 738] h granted the benefit of benefic ment under Chapter 11 of wh nt of compensation in the case s and in the case grievous hurt -195-2006 titled as Mamta a cided on 29.05.2024, held that si al legislation, the Judge should he provisions, under which ut should apply his judicial mind nd not illegalities which cannot e Hon'ble Supreme Court that e relationship or to the victim of the Court should make every eff thetically. Further, Justice sho by application of judicial mind w caution and by showing empat h that they strengthen the trust a n judicial system and judiciary." ants/appellants are held entitled shall be distributed as per the sa ted 12.08.2006 .

and held cial hich e of t of and ince not d, as t be f the ffort ould with thy. and " d to

12.

So the insurance c passenger is con this Court in the Co. Ltd. and oth as under:- "42 pro it o cov an art alle pro dam Pol Com veh eve 'Ac oth priv Com righ

far as the contention of learned ompany's liability to pay the c ncerned, the issue is no more r e case of Shiv Lochan Singh @ hers 2018(1) RCR(Civil) 559 ha

¶2The provisions of Motor Ve ovision of compulsory insurance on the road. Still further the Act vering of all claims qua third par accident involving such an insu e insurance companies to avo ificial distinction of Compre eged 'Act only policy' does no ovisions of the New Act. Needl mages to third party liability; ev licy' only, since it is mandato mpany and it is mandatory to hicle under the provisions of the ery policy, qua third party, can b ct Policy'. Under the provisions her than the vehicles for carrying vate passenger car/motor cy mpulsory Insurance. So the Insu ht in creating category of 'Act P

counsel for the appellant regard compensation in case of gratuit es integra as co-ordinate Bench Bhola Versus National Insuran as already settled the issue and h Vehicle Act, 1988 make a posi e of a motor vehicle before bring t makes a compulsory provision rty in case of damages arising fr ured vehicle. Hence the attemp oid statutory liability by creat ehensive/Package policy and ot stand legal scrutiny under less to say that qua the claim very policy has to be taken as ry to be issued by the Insura be obtained by the owner of e Motor Vehicle Act. In that se be said to be and has to be only s of the Old Act since the vehic g passengers for hire or reward ( cycle) were excluded from urance Companies were very m Policy' and 'Comprehensive Poli

ding tous h of nce held tive ging for rom t of ting for 'Act nce ense y an cles (i.e. uch cy';

whe gra mo disc Sec eve ride Com sep be Pol com 'Co qua exc Sec cla gro pas insu for con pro

ere separate premium was cha atuitous passengers in private pa tor cycle. But since under th cussed above, due to not carr ction 95 (1)(b)(i) of Old Act in S en the unpaid passengers in pr der on a Motor Cycle are al mpulsory Insurance required b erefore, to cover such unpaid parate premium is required to be made on the basis of descrip licy/Package Policy' or 'Act on mpany can created another omprehensive' or 'Package Polic a the driver, conductor or empl cluded from Compulsory Insur ction 147(1)(b), by charging ssification created by the insur ound by it for avoiding liability a e damages to the third party, ssenger car/pillion rider on a M urance company can charge on covering all risks qua third p nsolidated insurance for coverin ovisions of the Motor Vehicles

arged for covering the unpaid assenger car and pillion rider o e provisions of the New Act, rying forward the Proviso (ii) Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the New A rivate passenger car and a pill lso covered within the scope by Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the A passengers and pillion rider, e paid and hence no distinction ption of policy as 'Comprehens nly policy'. May be, the insura r class of policy called cy' for covering some extra risk loyee of the owner, which are s rance by virtue of Proviso(i) some extra premium. But t rance company cannot be mad arising from an insured vehicle, q including passengers in priv Motor Cycle. Needless to say t nly a single consolidated premi party, since it is compulsory a ng all third party claims under s Act. Insurance company is

d or on a as ) of Act, lion of Act, can sive nce as like still of that de a qua vate that ium and

ent par to com fall Pol cla pas Cyc

13.

In v company to pay

14.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Cour 9% per annum o the date of its re

15.

The compensation a from the date of to furnish their Tribunal is furt along with inter settled in the aw

titled and authorised to create rty claim cover, by categorizing be charged from the insured. mpulsory, it is compulsory for ling in definition of third party. licy' and 'Package Policy' do im for the damage caused to ssengers in a private passenger cle". view of the above, Tribunal's fi y the compensation is hereby set far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nadu State rt Cases 107, the appellants-cla on the enhanced amount from the ealization. e Insurance Company is dire longwith interest with the Tribu f receipt of copy of judgment. Th r bank account details to the I ther directed to disburse the e rest in the bank accounts of th ward dated 12.08.2006.

differential policies even for th g the separate amounts of premi Once the third party insurance all purposes and for all pers Hence the distinction of 'Act o not hold good; qua covering o third party, which include car and a pillion rider on a Mo finding qua absolving the insura aside. erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 e Transport Corporation (2022 aimants are granted the interest e date of filing of claim petition, ected to deposit the amount unal within a period of two mon he appellants-claimants are direc Insurance Company/Tribunal. T enhanced amount of compensat he appellants-claimants as per ra

hird ium e is ons only otor ance eme 2) 5 t @ till of nths cted The tion

16.

In

18.07.2024, the scheduled fee t twenty days from

17.

Dis

18.

Pen

December 19, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

view of the order passed in e insurance company is hereby to Mr. Gurpreet Singh Ahluwa m the date of receipt of copy of t sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

n FAO No.1682 of 2007 da y directed to disburse the curr alia, Advocate within a period this judgment. tand disposed off. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

ated rent