In FAO-2387-2018-PUNJ HC- If there was some delay by witness in disclosing particulars of offending vehicle to police, such factor may be relevant during criminal trial but it can’t be given much weightage while determining compensation u/s 166 of M.V. Act: P&H HC
Justice Sukhvinder Kaur [29-05-2023]

Read Order:IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Ram Singh And Others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, May 30, 2023: While observing that just raising the finger of suspicion would not be enough to dislodge the claimants who have lost their only son in the accident, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company for setting aside the award passed by the Rupnagar Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the claimants were awarded a compensation of Rs 15.27 lakh on account of death of a man in a motor vehicular accident.

“To prove connivance the cardinal principle is that like fraud there should be specific pleading in that regard and thereafter some positive evidence is also required to be adduced in support thereof”, the Bench said.

The appellants-claimants filed claim petitions invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation with the averments that in the year 2016, Rajwinder Singh (since deceased) was coming from Jhajji Chowk side to his village Agampur on his motorcycle when a  Maruti Dzire Car being driven by second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. 

Due to the collision, appellant-claimant sustained multiple grievous head injuries, compound fractures on his body and he died on the way to PGI, Chandigarh. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC against the said driver.

After considering the evidence available on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs 15,27,000  as compensation to the appellants alongwith interest and the Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the award , the appellant-Insurance Company had filed an appeal.The appellants-claimants were also seeking enhancement of compensation through an appeal.

After considering the evidence and submitted documents, the Bench opined that the income of the deceased that had been assessed as Rs 10,000 per month by the Tribunal was just and reasonable and did not warrant any interference. 

As per the Bench, the Tribunal had rightly made deduction of 50% of his income towards living and personal expenses as it was an admitted fact that deceased was unmarried.

“Besides that Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses. But in view of ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra) claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate. So the total compensation that is to be granted to the claimants qua death of deceased Rajwinder Singh comes to Rs.15,42,000/- (15,12,000 + 15000 + 15000)”, the Bench held.

Thus, the Bench held that the appellants/claimants were entitled to the compensation of Rs 15,42,000 along with interest.

Coming to the Company’s appeal, it was submitted that from the FIR and the claim petition it was apparent, that the accident had probably occurred with some unknown vehicle and later on the present insured vehicle was involved, to extract the compensation illegally.

The Bench noted that there were no detailed pleadings that who were the parties to the collusion and how and in what manner the police was also involved in the connivance.

“ Merely because the name of respondent No.1 and registration number of the offending vehicle are not there in the FIR, is not a circumstance, to discredit the case of the claimants”,the Bench held while adding, “ If there was some delay by PW2-Kulwant Singh in disclosing the particulars of the offending vehicle to the police, such factor may be relevant during the criminal trial but it cannot be given much weightage in proceedings for determining compensation payable in a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.”

It was also observed that the contention that the claimants were in collusion with respondents & the police was not sustainable, as the investigating agency had no reason to take the side of the appellants. Rather apparently by acting impartially it investigated the matter and could trace the offending vehicle and its driver and only after the investigation.

Thus, concluding that the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the offending car was involved in the accident and the accident took place as the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the Bench dismissed the Company’s appeal.