FAO 2036 2021

Baldev Singh and Anothers versus United India Insurance Company and Anrs.

1. DOO: 05.09.2017

2. FIR no. 306 dated. 06.09.2017 under sections 279 337 304-A IPC

3. Facts on 05.09.2017 -

· Complainant (Amit) and Brother (Sumit) riding from Sirsa on motorcycle respectively
with their wives as pillion rider.

· 3.30PM Complainant's brother Sumit along with his wife were hit by TATA bus driven by
Baldev son of Joginder negligently, Sumit fell on road and wife of Sumit struck by back
side of tyreof TATA bus resulting in grievous injuries, Sumit became unconcious and
Rekha (wife of Sumit) died on the spot. Sumit admitted to Bharat Hospital Hisar

· Lower Court : the appellants and awarded the compensation without considering the facts
and evidence on record by granting recovery rights to respondent No.1. Thus it appellant
No.1 and 2 were holding valid and effective driving licence and insurance policy at the
time of accident. The Ld. Tribunal has wrongly held the respondent No.1 entitled for
getting recovered the amount from the appellants after making payment to respondent
No. 2.

1. appellants have now placed onrecord the copy of permit in respect of a service of stage
carriages under the approved Stage Carriage Scheme,2016 issued by Regional Transport
Authority, Fatehabad on dated 17.03.2017 and the date of expiry of the permit is
16.03.2022 as Annexure A-1 as additional evidence.

2. The appellants were not having knowledge that whether thisdocument was exhibited
before the Ld. Tribunal or not, at the time when the claim petition filed by the respondent
No.2 was pending before the Ld. Tribunal and later on it has come in the knowledge after
perusal the of record that this document is necessary to prove that the appellant No 2 was
holding valid permit prior to the date of accident. As this document was not placed on
record before the Ld. Tribunal, the recovery rights have been given to respondent No.1
insurance company to recover the amount from both the appellants No. 1 and 2 after
making the payment to the respondent No.2 i.e. claimant before the Ld. Tribunal.

3. That that earned Tribunal has erred in deciding the issue No.3 to 6 against the appellants
only on the ground that the appellant No. 2 did not produce the valid permit and as such
the respondent No.1 insurance company is entitled to get the amount recovered from the
appellant after making the payment to the respondent No.2 and did not consider the facts
and evidence available on record whereas the appellant No.2 was holding valid permit at
the time of accident which has now been placed on record as Annexure A-1 as additional
evidence.