HC upholds Rs. 13.5 Lakh compensation awarded by accident tribunal to deceased farmer’s family

Read Judgement:  United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manjit Kaur and others

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, August 12, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the compensation of Rs 13.56 Lakh awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga, in the accidental death case of a farmer.

A Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed on account of death of Jagdeep Singh, who has been claimed to have died in a motor vehicle accident which took place in 2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. 

The deceased was claimed to be an agriculturist, dairy farmer and also working with Sewa Kendra and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.

The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record concluded that Jagdeep Singh died in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal while considering the deceased to be an unskilled labourer, assessed his income as Rs.8451.95/- per month and a sum of Rs.13.56 Lakh  was awarded as compensation to the deceased’s family.

Filing the appeal before the High court, the insurance company contended that evidence on record does not prove that the accident in question was caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. 

The Insurance company, while advertising to the testimony of a prosecution witness (PW-2) named Kuldeep Singh, submitted that this witness in his cross examination had clearly stated that he never witnessed the accident and therefore, he had wrongly been treated to be an eye witness of the accident. 

According to the appellants, this witness was proved to be a planted witness as he did not even know the name, address or father’s name of the driver of the offending vehicle and had admitted that his statement was not recorded by the police. Compensation to the deceased, it was stated, was excessive as well.

Deciding the matter, a Bench of Justice Lisa Gill stated that the reference to cross-examination of the prosecution witness in question and specifically to his statement saying that he had never seen the accident himself was being read out of context. 

According to the Bench, he had explained that he was 50 yards behind the exact spot of the accident and he reached the spot after the bus had hit the car. It is in this context that the witness stated that he himself never saw the accident taking place.

“Furthermore, argument that PW-2 did not know name of the driver, is of no avail to the appellant. The said witness was not expected to know the name and details of the driver and he has clearly stated that he came to know the details from the police and people, who had gathered there after the accident,” observed the Bench.

The Bench noted that the appellant was unable to point out any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moga, which calls for any interference by the High Court at the instance of the appellant-insurance company. 

Acknowledging the fact that the Tribunal had returned a correct finding on this issue after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court also specifically mentioned that the appellant company was unable to deny that the bus in question was abandoned at the spot by its driver. It was further proved on record that Jagdeep Singh died due to injuries received by him in the accident, on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. 

With these observations, the High Court dismissed the Appeal with no order as to costs.