Assessment of income – Income Tax Return -- It is only on the basis of the said ITR that the income of the deceased and the consequent loss of dependency to the claimants, has been assessed by the Tribunal -- If the insurance company had any proof that before this year the deceased, who was self-employed, was not earning this much of money, then the insurance company was free to lead anything in evidence to that effect -- Court did not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal; in this regard.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Non-involvement of insured vehicle in accident – Despite taking a specific plea in the written statement that the vehicle insured by the appellant was not involved in the accident, the insurance company has not led any evidence to support this assertion made in the written statement -- Hence, their pleadings have gone totally unsubstantiated.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Registration of FIR – Requirement of -- Even if there had been no FIR registered in the matter, that would not have disentitled the claimants from compensation on account of death of deceased in the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Territorial jurisdiction of MACT case -- Accident at Rajasthan – Claim petition at Gurugram -- Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Acquittal in criminal case – Merely acquittal would not absolve the insurance company of its responsibility to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Future prospects -- Rules contemplates addition of 20% of salary for future prospects -- If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (2017) 16 SCC 680 cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge – Prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima -- In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication -- If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2021

Injured was operated for the fracture of his femur and fracture acetabulam left side and was operated twice in the hospital which charged Rs.2,90,000/- -- Similarly, Rs.36,049/- which was incurred on account of medicine charges was also brought on record – It is in such circumstances the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of income of Rs.33,714/-, to arrive at the amount of compensation of Rs.4,09,763/--- Injured was drawing a salary of Rs.16,857/- per month, which is the basis to grant the said compensation for the period he was not able to do duties on account of the fracture sustained -- No case is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside, Entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Deceased was aged 32 years at the time of his death and he was un-married -- Income of the deceased proved to be Rs.12,455/- per month minus the applicable income tax -- No deduction is to be made from the salary qua other allowances etc. -- Multiplier is required to be applied as per the age of the deceased -- Multiplier of 16 and the eligible claimant is entitled to the benefit of future prospects @ 50% -- Appellant no. 1 is entitle for Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses -- By taking 50% dependency amount of compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,36,000/- to 16,36,816/- -- Interest @ 6% per annum awarded from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on enhanced compensation of Rs.13,00,816/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Daily diary report – Evidential value -- Daily dairy report was entered on the statement of respondent No.6, who was, at the relevant time, driving the motorcycle he cannot be expected to admit his negligence – In support of the claim petition, eyewitness has appeared before the Court to depose, he has been thoroughly cross examined by putting searching questions -- His deposition has been found creditable by the Tribunal -- Hence, the contention is without substance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Pleadings of negligence – Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Plea of Collusion -- Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Plea of collusion – Proof of -- Insurance company has not led any evidence to prove its plea of collusion between the claimants on the one hand and the owner and driver on the other hand – No ground to interfere in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is made out -- Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Car was on hire – No evidence that the car was being plied on hire at the relevant time -- Insurance Company did not plead this fact in its written statement -- Consequently, the Tribunal did not frame any issue on this aspect – Held, Insurance Company has failed to lay any foundation by pleading the aforesaid fact and thereafter, corroborate the same by leading any evidence -- Hence, the contention is rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Pleading -- Manner of accident disputed – Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence, who could have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court expresses inability to accept the argument.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Salary slip show deceased drew total salary of Rs.76,163/- -- Tribunal after deducting the amount towards AFPP fund subscription, AFPP refund and the amount of income tax came to income of the deceased as Rs.63,182/- per month, of which annual income works out to Rs.7,58,184/- per annum – Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, 50% addition of actual salary on account of future prospects made out -- Tribunal applied 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, who has left behind four dependents -- Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs.8,52,957/- as annual dependency -- No error to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Seven persons were travelling in the vehicle whereas the registered seating capacity of the vehicle is of five only – Held, Insurer is liable to the extent of persons permitted under the carriage permit – Vehicle was permitted to be occupied by five persons, only five claim petitions were filed -- No ground to admit the appeals.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Petition u/s 163-A of MV Act held not maintainable -- It was held that petition u/s 163-A was not maintainable as income of the claimant was much more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. – Under the circumstances, there was no bar upon the claimant to file a petition u/s 166 of the Act on the basis of fault liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Simultaneous proceedings u/s 163-A and 166 of the Act cannot be undertaken as the remedies therein are separate and independent.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021