14.01.2025 The Orien Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. … v. Ram Krish Krishan and another
Case Details
FAO-515-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 228 FAO No.515 of 2 Date of decision 15 of 2013 cision :-14.01.2025 The Orien Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …..Appellant Versus Ram Krish Krishan and another …..Respondents CORAM: AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI E NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Co ce Company. None for respondent No.1. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The Insurance Company is in y is in appeal against the Award dated 05.1 05.10.2012 passed by the Motor A tor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh digarh (hereinafter referred to be as ‘ be as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the claim petit petition bearing MACT Case No.10 No.102 of 10.3.2011 filed under Section 163 on 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (h Act (hereinafter referred to be as ‘the Act’) Act’) has been allowed, and the sol sole claimant/husband of the deceased S ased Sharda Devi/ respondent No.1 No.1 herein, has been granted compensati ensation of Rs.5,19,200/-. Brief facts of the case are th are that the on the basis of the pleadings a ings and the evidence led by the pa the parties, the learned Tribunal VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-515-2013 2 concluded luded that the deceased Sharda Devi h Devi had died due to the injuries suffered by red by her in a motor vehicular ac lar accident that took place on 08.1.2011 .2011 due to the accident arising out g out of use of the motor cycle bearing reg ng registration No.CH01-AC-2877 (h 877 (hereinafter referred to be as ‘the offend offending vehicle’) being driven by th n by the respondent No.2 who is owner and er and driver of the said offending vehi g vehicle. Learned counsel for the app e appellant-Insurance Company assails the ls the impugned Award on the ground ground that as per Section 163-A of the Act e Act maximum amount of Rs.5,00,00 ,00,000/- can be awarded by way of compen mpensation; whereas, vide the impu impugned Award compensation of ₹5,19,20 ,200/– has been awarded. It is further contended by d by learned counsel for the appellant- -Insurance Company that the the respondent No.2/driver and owner of th er of the offending vehicle/motor-cycl cycle is the son of the claimant and the d the deceased; and therefore, the the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000 ,00,000/- ought to be deducted by 50% by 50% as the accused could not have been been a claimant/beneficiary of the Aw he Award. No other argument is raised o
Legal Reasoning
ised on behalf of learned counsel for the appe e appellant-Insurance Company. I have heard learned couns counsel for the appellant and perused the sed the case file in great detail. Perusal of the record of the c f the case shows that the learned Tribunal on nal on the basis of the pleadings and s and evidence led by the parties, concluded luded that the deceased Sharda Dev a Devi had died to the injuries suffered by red by her in a motor vehicular ac lar accident that took place on 08.1.2011 d .2011 due to the use of the offending v ding vehicle by respondent No.2. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-515-2013 3 Consequen equentially, compensation of Rs.5,19 s.5,19,200/- was awarded to the claimant/hu ant/husband of the deceased/respo /respondent No.1 herein under Section 163 on 163-A of the Act. No doubt in a claim petition tition underSection 163-A of the Act, compe compensation is to be awarded in a st in a structured formula strictly as provided i ided in the 2nd Schedule to the the Act, and cannot exceed Rs.5,00,000 ,00,000/-.However, in the present case nt case compensation in excess of only ₹19,2 ₹19,200 has been awarded to the c the claimant. In this situation, reference m ence may be made to judgment of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) SL SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V Vinish Jain & Others”, wherein herein it has been held that where difference rence in compensation is about 4 to 5 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant int ant interference by the Court as, such , such variation in compensation is within p ithin permissible limits. The abovesaid ovesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the K y the Kerala High Court in “The Managing aging Director, Divisional Contro ontroller Versus Alikutty and Others” L rs” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188. Even the second contention o ntion of learned counsel for the appellant- -Insurance Company that respon respondent No.2 is son of the claimant an ant and the deceased, and therefore d efore deduction of 50% ought to be made in ade in the awarded compensation, is , is liable to be rejected as, a perusal of sal of Memo of Parties before this e this Court as also before the learned Tri ed Tribunal shows that respondent No ent No.1 is Sunil Kumar s/o Ram Kumar; wh ar; whereas the claimant is Ram Kris Krishan. Thus, there is nothing whatsoever soever on record to indicate that the at the respondent No.2 is the son of the dece e deceased and the claimant. In any ev any event, even if for the sake of VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-515-2013 4 argument, ment, it is assumed that respondent no ent no.2is the son of the deceased and the cla he claimant, the same is liable to be re o be rejected as the claim petition was filed o filed only on behalf of Ram Krishan, , the husband of the deceased Sharda Dev da Devi; and compensation of ₹5,19,2 ₹5,19,200/– was also awarded to the said so aid sole claimant. As such, question o stion of deduction of 50% of the awarded am ded amount does not arise as the entire e entire amount has been awarded only to the to the sole claimant/respondent No.1. No.1. Moreover, learned counsel for the app he appellant-Insurance Company is un is unable to make out that this objection w ction was raised by the Insurance Co ce Company before the learned Tribunal. issed. dismissed. In view of the above noted f oted facts, the present appeal is Pending application(s), if any,
Decision
if any, shall stands disposed of. 14, 2025 January 1 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document