FAO/45/2018 on 31 December 2020

1. FAO No. 45 of 2018

United India Insurance Company Ltd

.. Appellant

Versus

Smt. Bimla Devi and others

..Respondents

2. FAO No. 559 of 2017

United India Insurance Company Ltd

..Appellant

Versus

Shanti Devi

..Respondent.

3. FAO No. 564 of 2017

United India Insurance Co. Ltd

..Appellant

Versus

Sushma Devi and others

…Respondent. ___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes ________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 in FAO No.

of2017 and for respondents No. 4 in FAOs No. 45 of 2018 and 559 of 2017.

Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4, in FAO No. 564 of 2017 and FAO No. 45 of 2018 and for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 559 of 2017.

Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 to 10 in FAO No. 45 of 2018.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

FAO No. 564 of 2017, becomes directed against the impugned award, of, 4.9.2017, and as, became pronounced, in, MAC case No.50- R/2 of 2016/2013, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (HP), wherethroughs, it proceeded, to, award compensation moneys, hence comprised in a sum of Rs. 17,49,000/-, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, and, commencing, from the date of petition till realization. Also therethroughs, hence the learned Tribunal fastened, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurer, of, the vehicle concerned. The Insurer, of, the vehicle concerned, hence becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, obviously has proceeded, to assail it, by instituting the instant appeal, herebefore.

2. FAO No. 559 of 2017, is directed

against the impugned award, of, 4.9.2017, and, as, became pronounced, in, MAC case No.49- R/2 of 2016/2013, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (HP), wherethroughs, it proceeded, to, award compensation moneys, hence comprised in, a sum of Rs. 20,63,000/-, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, and, commencing, from the date of petition till realization. Also therethroughs, hence the learned Tribunal, fastened, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurer, of, the vehicle concerned. The Insurer, of, the vehicle concerned hence becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, obviously has proceeded, to assail it, by instituting the instant appeal,herebefore.

3. Likewise, FAO No. 45 of 2018,

becomes directed against the impugned award, of, and, 4.9.2017, as, became pronounced, in, MAC case No.48-R/2 of 2016/2013, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (HP), wherethrough(s), it proceeded, to, award compensation moneys, hence comprised in, a sum of Rs. 15,77,000/-, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, and, commencing, from the date of petition till realization. Also therethrough(s), hence the learned Tribunal, fastened, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurer, of, the vehicle concerned. The Insurer, of, the vehicle concerned hence becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, obviously has proceeded, to assail it, by instituting the instant appeal herebefore.

4. Since all the afore FAOs, hence arise

from, appositely reared claim petition(s), rather before the learned MACT concerned, and, appertaining, to, a collision, hence involving a common, in, all rather, the, apposite offending vehicle, hence, driven, at the relevant time, by, one Chauhan Singh, thereupon all the afore FAO, are, amenable for a common verdict, becoming pronounced thereon(s).

5. The learned counsel, appearing for the aggrieved Insurer, has, contended with much vigor, before this Court, (i) that with one Mandeep Singh, through Ext. RW1/A, selling, the, offending vehicle, to, M/s Chitosho Motors, and, thereafter, with the latter through mark-A, selling, it, to, one Chauhan Singh, thereupon, the afore Mandeep Singh, became barred, to, execute, any, valid contract of, insurance, vis-à- vis, the offending vehicle, vis-à-vis, the Insurer,

(ii) emphatically when hence, the execution, of, the apposite contract, of, insurance, by the afore Mandeep Singh, with the Insurance Company concerned, became sparked rather through, his, proactively practicing vitiatory vices, of, suppresio veri, and, suggestio falsi, (iii) vices whereof, make imminent upsurging(s), from the afore alluded respective exhibit(s), and, mark(s), (iv) and he thereafter contends, that, the afore deployed stratagem, by Mandeep Singh, concomitantly ingraining, the, apposite contract, of, insurance, as, borne in Ext. RW4/B, with a, pervasive vice, of, fraudulence, hence, the saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurer, becoming a grossly fallible endeavor(s), rather, by the learned MACT concerned. His afore submission, is, rested, upon, the trite

principle, vis-à-vis, the afore displays, made in Ext. RW1/A and, in Mark-A, rather, depriving Mandeep Singh, of, his claiming hence any valid insurable interest, in, the offending vehicle, and, yet his, through, camouflaging, the, makings, of, both the afore(s), his, succeeding, in the, apposite contract, of, insurance, vis-à- vis, the offending vehicle, rather becoming untenably executed, with, the Insurer concerned.

6. Be that as it may, before proceeding, to, determine the tenacity, of, the afore made submissions, before this Court, by the counsel, for the Insurer, it is imperative to, at the outset, make, a, clinching verdict, that, till the requisite corrections, are made, in, the apposite Registration Certificate, hence, thereupto the registered owner, becoming amenable, for

unless, he holds, the apposite valid contract,of, insurance, from the Insurer concerned, hence, for the saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon his/her. Since, the Registration certificate, did not, undergo the requisite corrections, hence, the name, of, one Mandeep Singh, continued to become reflected, hence therein, as the registered owner,of, the offending vehicle, and, thereupon, the afore trite canon, hence becomes workable qua, him, excepting, vis-à- vis, the questioned contract, of, insurance, rather becoming validated. However, a, perusal, of, Mark-C, scribed in Punjabi, and translated into English, makes clear echoing(s), vis-à-vis, in the year 2013, hence, after more than two years, elapsing since, the, making of Ext. RW1/A, and, (a) wherethrough, Mandeep

Singh, rather sold the offending vehicle, to M/s Chitosho Motors, and, thereafter, the latter sold, the, apposite vehicle to Chauhan Singh, rather the afore M/s Chitosho Motors, the, apposite addressor, hence therein, making a communication, to, the District Transport Officer, Mohali, inasmuch, as, unfoldings becoming, carried therein, vis-à-vis, the RTO concerned, becoming requested, to, transmit the apposite NOC, for, the relevant purpose, to the DTO, Transport Office, Mohali,

(i) and, thereunderneath, the afore communication(s), as, made by M/s Chitosho Motors, became replied, to, by the DTO, Mohali, with an echoing therein, hence, unveiling aua the requisite NOC becoming, not transmitted, to, the addressee concerned, rather it becoming issued, on 12.4.2012, to, RA (MV) Shimla.

However, hence the afore reflection(s), cast in Mark-C, are suggestive, vis-à-vis, one Mandeep Singh, rather taking all the requisite recoursing(s), for ensuring qua the apposite corrections, becoming made, in the Registration certificate, appertaining to the offending vehicle, (ii) and when thereafter, a perusal, of, Ext. RW4/B, also makes clear reflection(s), vis-à- vis, one Mandeep Singh, becoming depicted therein, to be the insured, yet when the address, of, the Insured, is, echoed therein to be, of, one Chauhan Singh, who, purchased the offending vehicle, from Chitosho Motors, (iii) thereupon, the afore under-linings, are exemplificatory, vis- à-vis, one Mandeep Singh, neither camouflaging nor concealing, from, the Insurance company, the, name and address, of, the purchaser, of, the offending vehicle, (iv)

and therefrom, a, further inevitable corollary arises, vis-à-vis, the official concerned, of, the Insurance Company, after making rather deep and incisive inqueries, vis-à-vis, the insurable capacity, of one Mandeep Singh, and, of, one Chauhan Singh, the addressee, of, the, insured,

(v) given, the apposite registration certificate, remaining thereat as, aforestated, hence in- complete, as the apposite processes, were, yet underway, (vi) and besides, also with the active, diligence, of, one Mandeep Singh, rather executing the apposite contract, of, insurance. In aftermath, it appears, that, the Insurance Company, did also collect, the, requisite premium, from, one Chauhan Singh, and, not from Mandeep Singh, (vii) moreso, unless evidence, became adduced, for, negating the afore inference, and, as comprised, in, the

afore apposite premium(s)/amount(s), becoming liquidated, vis-à-vis, the Insurance Company concerned, either in cash or through RTGS mode, not from the accounts, of, Chauhan Singh, and, rather from the accounts, of, Mandeep Singh. However, wants of, adduction, of, the afore , rather bolsters, an inference, vis-à-vis, the Insurance company concerned, rather collecting, in contemporaniety, vis-à-vis, the execution, of Ext. RW1/B, the apposite premium, from Chauhan Singh, reflected therein, to be the address, of, one Mandeep Singh, (viii) and, also a further conclusion becomes sparked, qua dehors, the apposite corrections, becoming not carried, in the Registration Certificate concerned, despite theirs’ becoming rather diligently processed, hence, thereupto both, by, Mandeep Singh,

and, by Chauhan Singh, (ix) rather hence both afore only for hence ensuring, that, in case, any mishap, rather involving offending vehicle, hence, happens, qua thereupon, the, apposite indemnificatory liability, becoming saddled, upon, the Insurance company concerned, reiteratedly rather both, conjointly making all the afore full disclosures, vis-à-vis, the official concerned, of, the Insurance company, , for, the latter thereafter, ensuring, the, diligent, and, valid execution, of, Ext. RW4/B, hence with them. Consequently, it appears that the official(s), of, the Insurance company concerned, hence, without any malafide(s), and, also without theirs becoming misled or beguiled rather by Mandeep Singh, or by Chauhan Singh, theirs rather with the fullest awakening hence validly executing the

contract, of, insurance, embodied in Ext. RW4/B,

(x) and also hence, theirs, receiving, especially with the afore, imperative evidence, being amiss, for, rather negating the afore made conclusion, qua, the apposite premium, also becoming liquidated, by, one Chauhan Singh, rather for the latter, hence, enabling the saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon the Insurer concerned. In aftermath, the, saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon the Insurer, is, valid. FAO No. 559 of 2017

7. The learned counsel appearing, for, the Insurer, contends, that, the computation(s), of, compensation, in, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000, under, the conventional head, “Loss of consortium, and, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the

conventional head, “funeral expenses”, and also further assessments, vis-à-vis, a sum, of, Rs. 1,00,000/- each, as, became granted to the petitioners No. 2 and 3, under, the conventional head, “loss of love and affection” besides dtermination, of, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, under, the head “loss to the estate”, being beyond, the, ambit of the verdict rendered, by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled, as, National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (4) ACJ 2700. His afore contention is weighty, and, is accepted. Consequently, the quantification, of monetary damages, by the learned Tribunal, in, a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and, also quantification, of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants No. 2 and 3, under the head, loss of

love and affection, besides, the afore quantification, of, funeral expenses, are,(a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as, rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has become expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of expectation of life, and, funeral expenses, being quantified, only upto, Rs.15,000/-, (only to widow) Rs.40,000/-, and, Rs.15,000/- respectively,

(iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis any compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the offspring(s) of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto, being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation,

under, the aforesaid heads, vis-à-vis, the petitioners No. 2 and 3. Accordingly, in addition to a sum of, Rs. 16,38,000/-, as became awarded, to, the claimants, by the learned tribunal, they are, also entitled to, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, (only to widow) and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation wheretowhich, the, petitioners, are entitled, comes to Rs. 16,38,000/-+ 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000 +15,000/-= Rs. 17,08,000-(Rs. Seventeen lakhs, eight thousand, only).

8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.

17,08,000 /- along with interest @ 9%, per annum, from, the date of petition till its realization. FAO No. 564 of 2017

9. The learned counsel appearing, for, the Insurer, contends, that, the computation(s), of, compensation amount, in, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000, under the conventional head, “Loss of consortium”, and, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the conventional head, “funeral expenses”, and also further assessments, vis-à-vis, a sum, of, Rs. 1,00,000/- each, as became granted to the petitioners No. 2 to 4, under, the conventional head, “loss of love and affection” besides determination, of, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under, the head loss to the estate, being, beyond, the, ambit of the verdict rendered, by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled,

as, National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (4) ACJ 2700. His afore contention is weighty, and, is accepted. Consequently, the quantification, of monetary damages, by the learned Tribunal, in, a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and, also quantification, of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants No. 2, 3 and 4, under the head, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, besides the afore quantification, of, funeral expenses, and quantification, of, compensation, under the heard loss to the estate, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as, rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has become expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of expectation of life,

and, funeral expenses, being quantified, only upto, Rs.15,000/-, (only to widow) Rs.40,000/-, and, Rs.15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis any compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the mother, and, to the offspring(s) of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto, being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the petitioners No. 2 and 3. Accordingly, in addition to a sum of, Rs. 12,24,000/-, as became awarded, to, the claimants, by the learned tribunal, they are, also entitled, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, (only to widow)

and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation whereto which, the, petitioners are entitled comes to Rs. 12,24,000/-+ 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000 +15,000/-= Rs. 12,94,000- (Rs. Twelve lakhs, ninety four thousand, only).

10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled, to a total compensation of Rs.12,94,000 /- along with interest @ 9%, per annum, from, the date of petition till its realization. FAO No. 45 of 2018

11. The learned counsel appearing, for, the Insurer, contends, that, the computation(s), of, compensation amount, vis-à-vis, a sum of Rs.

1,00,000, under, the conventional head, “Loss of consortium”, and, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the conventional head, “funeral expenses”, and also further assessments, vis-à-vis, a sum of, and Rs. 1,00,000/- each, as became granted to the petitioners No. 2 and 3, under, the conventional head, “loss of love and affection” besides determination, of, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, under, the head loss to the estate, being beyond, the, ambit of the verdict rendered, by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled, as, National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (4) ACJ 2700. His afore contention is weighty, and, is accepted. Consequently, the quantification, of monetary damages, by the learned Tribunal, in, a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and, also

quantification, of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants No. 2 and 3, under the head, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, besides the afore quantification, of, funeral expenses, and also quantification, of, compensation, under the heard loss to the estate, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as, rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has become expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses, being quantified, only upto, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, (only to widow) and, Rs.15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis any compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the offspring(s) of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection,

hence reliefs in respect thereto, being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-à-vis, the, petitioners No. 2 and 3. Accordingly, in addition to a sum of Rs. 11,52,000/-, as became awarded, to, the claimants, by the learned tribunal, they are, also entitled, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, (only to widow) and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation whereto which, the, petitioners are entitled, comes to Rs. 11,52,000/-+ 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000 +15,000/-= Rs. 12,22,000-(Rs. Twelve lakhs, twenty two thousand, only).

12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal

filed by the insurer, is, partly allowed, and, the impugned award(s), is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,22,000 /- along with interest @ 9%, per annum, from, the date of petition till its realization.

13. In summa, all the afore appeals, are, in the afore manner, hence, partly allowed, and, also all the impugned awards, are, in the afore manner, also partly modified. No orders as to cost. Records be sent back.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Judge 31.12.2019 Kalpana