Indrawati & Ors. v. M/s H.R. Builders & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 May 2009
- Bench
- JASWANT SINGH
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the agreed stand, this revision petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 166
Key paragraphs
- Para 4040. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 ACJ 1 an Lilaben Udesing Gohel Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 1605…
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) Petitioners are the LRs of the deceased Attar Singh, who died on 29.06.1998 while going on his motor-cycle, which met with a motor vehicle accident with a truck, which was rashly and negligently being driven by respondent No.2-Ram Chander Sharma and owned by respondent No.1-M/s H.R. Builders and insured by respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company. The petitioners-claimants on account of the death of deceased Attar Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988. The same was allowed vide ex-parte Award dated 15.11.1999. Subsequently, an application for setting aside the ex-parte C.R. No.2219 of 2007 -2- Award was moved by the respondents and the ex-parte Award was set aside. Thereafter, an Award dated 17.03.2004 was passed, whereby the petitioners-claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.7,79,152/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the revision petition i.e. 11.09.1998 till the date of payment. The liability was fixed on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as joint and several. However, respondent No.3-Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation and thereafter was permitted to recover it from respondent Nos.1 and 2. relevant/operative paragraphs of the Award are reproduced as under:- “
As a result of foregoing discussion, it is hereby observed that a total amount of Rs.7,79,152/- is liable to be paid as compensation to the claimants/petitioners. The said amount would be paid by insurance company respondent No.3, who would, in turn, recover the said amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is being awarded on the amount of Rs.7,79,152/- from the date of filing of the original petition i.e. 11.9.1998 till the date of payment. 35, 36, 37 and 38 XXX XXX
Now comes the apportionment compensation amount amongst claimants/petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is mother of the deceased. She is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- petitioners No.3 and 4 are the sons of deceased. C.R. No.2219 of 2007 -3- Petitioner No.3 namely Ajay Kumar is employed and is getting Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. He would be given Rs.1,50,000/- out of total amount of compensation. Petitioner No.4 Vijay Kumar, who is minor son of deceased Attar Singh, is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 is widow of the deceased. She is entitle to get the remaining amount i.e. Rs.3,29,152/- (1,00,000+1,50,000+2,00,000) along with interest.
Operative part
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 ACJ 1 an Lilaben Udesing Gohel Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 1605, it is further directed that the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners, except the petitioner No.4, who is minor son of the deceased, shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period of two years and the said amount shall be paid to them on the expiry of said period. The amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.4 be deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period till attaining the age of majority, however, the petitioners at their option C.R. No.2219 of 2007 -4- would be entitle to claim monthly or quarterly interest on the amounts deposited in their names. It is further directed that in case of urgent need, the petitioners would be entitled to apply to the court for early payment and in case any such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Court. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.1100/-. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. ” Thereafter, an application dated 11.05.2005 was filed by all the claimants for release of the deposited compensation in their names, which has been partly allowed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2006 whereby it has been ordered that the amount of Rs.50,000/- each be released to all the claimants-applicants out of their respective shares so lying in the FDRs subject to their furnishing sureties/securities. Counsel for the petitioner states that today, the two years condition of depositing the awarded amount of compensation in the respective shares has lapsed. Counsel for the respondents does not refute the claim of the applicants for releasing the entire remaining amount lying in the FDRs. In view of the agreed stand, this revision petition is allowed. Learned Executing Court is directed to release the remaining amount of compensation to the applicants-claimants lying in the FDRs. May 27, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the agreed stand, this revision petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 May 2009. The bench was JASWANT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.