Gurpreet Singh v. National Insurance Company & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 166
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The owner of the offending vehicle is in appeal before this Court. The only submission of the counsel for the appellant is that he had given two insurance policies to his counsel; one was Ex.R3, referred to above and the another one was for…
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate for respondent Insurance Company. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Bhupinder Singh died in a road accident on April 03, 2006 on account of negligent driving of Turbo 1613 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) by Ranjit Singh. The offending vehicle was owned by Gurpreet Singh. Legal representatives of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nawanshahr (for short `the Tribunal').
The Tribunal vide award dated December 22, 2009 awarded an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation, to the claimants. Ranjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh, driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, were held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The insurance policy (Ex.R3) set up by the owner of the offending vehicle had lapsed. It was valid for the period March 24, 2005 to March 23, 2006. The accident took place on April 03, 2006.
The owner of the offending vehicle is in appeal before this Court. The only submission of the counsel for the appellant is that he had given two insurance policies to his counsel; one was Ex.R3, referred to above and the another one was for the period from March 24, 2006 to March 23, 2007, whereby, the offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited – respondent No.1 herein, but the counsel could not place on record the second insurance policy for the reasons best known to him. It is pleaded that since the offending vehicle was insured on the day of accident, therefore, the respondent Company should be held liable to indemnify the appellant.
The copy of the relevant Insurance Policy (Annexure A1) has been placed on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent Company has fairly conceded that the offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company vide insurance policy (Annexure A1) on the day of the accident, that is April 03,
In the circumstances, since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company, so it is also held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants jointly and severely along with Ranjit Singh, driver and Gurpreet Singh, owner/appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has also undertaken that the amount of compensation shall be deposited within 45 days from today.
In view of this, the appeal is accepted modifying the award of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above. February 02, 2012 `gian' ( NAWAB SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
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 02 Feb 2012. The bench was NAWAB 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.