The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daljit Kaur And Ors

1. These four appeals No. 1074, 1075 and 1077 of 1985 and 392 of 1986, are being disposed of by a common judgment which have been filed by the New India Assurance Co. against the four awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, in four separate claim petitions. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the New India Assurance Company, Patiala.

2. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 76,800/-, Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 76,800/- to the claimants on account of the death of Kulwant Singh, Narinder Singh and Jeet Ram and Rs. 36,098/- and Rs. 7,895 to Daljit Kaur and Pushpinder Kaur for the injuries sustained by them in road accident.

3. The Bench had dismissed the appeal Nos. 1074, 1075 and 1077 of 1985 filed by the Insurance Co. against the claimants. However, the appeals were admitted as against the driver of the truck and owner of Matador and Oriental Insurance Co. with which the Matador bearing No. PJV 3979 was insured. FAO 392/1986 was admitted and ordered to be heard with FAO No. 1074 of 1986.

4. In all these appeals, the challenge to the award is that the liability to pay compensation has been wrongly fastened on the appellant which should have been fastened on the Oriental Insurance Company.

5. In this case the accident and deaths of Kulwant Singh, Narinder Singh and Jeet Ram are not in dispute. The only opposition is with record to the fastening of the liability.

6. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1983, Kulwant Singh deceased, along with Narinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh Sodhi, Bhupinder Singh, Palwinder Singh, Joginder Kaur, Pushpinder Kaur and Daljit Kaur along with two minor children were proceeding towards Faridkot in a Matador PJV-3979 being driven by Jeet Ram. A truck hearing No. PJV 4535 which was being driven by Dilawar Singh respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from Ludhiana side and struck against the Matador as a result of which the driver of the Matador was killed at the spot. The claimants and other occupants received injuries. The injured were removed to C.M.C. Ludhiana. While Narinder Singh Sodhi died immediately after reaching the hospital, Kulwant Singh dies after six days of the occurrence. According to the claimants, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Dilawar Singh, the driver of truck No. PUC 4535.

7. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the claimants details of which have already been mentioned in para 2 of the judgment, by holding that death of Kulwant Singh, Jeet Singh and Narinder Singh and injuries to Daljit Kaur and Pushpinder Kaur, were caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of Dilawar Singh, driver of truck No. PUC-4535.

8. The counsel for the appellants her argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver whereas the accident was caused due to negligent driving of Matador No. PUV 3979.

9. Counsel for the appellant contends that per statements of Smt. Daljit Kaur, Pushpinder Kaur and Bhupinder Singh, the eye-witnesses, it is apparent that deaths were not caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUC 4535. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company contends that the liability on the New India Insurance Company has been rightly fastened. As such, no interference in the matter is called for.

10. After having considered the submissions and perusing the evidence, this Court has reached the conclusion that 100% liability to pay compensation on the New India Assurance Company has been wrongly fastened. It has come in the testimony of Smt. Daljit Kaur (PW1) who was the occupant of matador that a truck came from the opposite side and dashed into the matador in a rash and negligent manner. In cross-examination she admitted that she was sitting on the back seat of the matador and she came to know about the accident when it had occurred. This witness could not have been in a position to tell as to how the accident had taken place. On appreciation of the evidence, the conclusion can be drawn that it is a case for head on collision between the truck and the Matador. Had the driver of the Matador, on seeing the truck coming from the opposite side, taken some precaution and taken the vehicle to the extreme left of the road, the unfortunate tragedy would have been averted. In all probability, the driver of the Matador was also driving the Matador at a high speed and as it was a head on collision the liability can safely be fastened in the ration of 50:50 on both the New India Assurance Co. and the Oriental Insurance Co.

11. In FAO No. 392-1986, filed by the New India Assurance Co. against the Lrs of Jeet Ram driver of Matador, Oriental Insurance Co. has not been arrayed as a respondent. Therefore, in this case the Oriental Insurance Company cannot be made liable. Thus this appeal No. 392-1986 merits dismissal on this short ground.

12. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals except appeal No. 392-1986, are partly allowed and the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, are modified to the extent that the liability to pay compensation would be in the ratio of 50:50 on the New India Assurance Co. & the Oriental Insurance Co. FAO 392-1986 stands dismissed.

No. costs.