Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 717 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. RAJA RAM

2010-04-09

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 29.5.1998 passed by the MACT Kinnaur at Rampur Bushar vide which the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1(hereinafter referred to as claimant) filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of personal injuries sustained by him as well as damage to the property, namely, apple boxes, in an accident that took place on 2.10.1996 in the area of village Kelahat. The vehicle involved was the Truck bearing No.HP-35-0535 owned by Purshotam, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 5. It was alleged that the truck was being driven by Kuldip Singh the original respondent No.6 and the vehicle was insured with the appellant (respondent No.7 before the Tribunal). Respondents took up various pleas including that the claimant was not the sole owner. They also denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driver of the driver. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled. 1. Whether the alleged mishap took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.6? OPP. 2. If Issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount the claimant is entitled to receive as compensation? OPP 3. Whether the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured, as alleged? OPR-7. 4. Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger traveling in the vehicle involved in the accident? OPR-7. 5. Whether the goods carried in the vehicle were beyond the insurance coverage? OPR-7. 6. Relief. 4. The parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.8,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. In so far as the compensation as price of apple boxes was concerned, it was held that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.71,5000/-, and not Rs.80,000/-as claimed, and the same was awarded as compensation to be payable by respondent No.7-appellant i.e. the Insurance Company. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. Two points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. Two points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. The first point raised was that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, the Insurance Company is not liable for the value of apple boxes allegedly destroyed in this accident. Reliance was placed on the decision of Shri Jagdish Chand Sharma vs. Bachan Singh & others, FAO No.97 of 1999 decided on 6.1.2010. It was clearly held that the goods being carried in the vehicle cannot be termed to be the property of a third party and as such the Insurance Company was held to be not liable for compensation in this regard. This point has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments though he had pleaded that there was no specific pleadings in this regard. 7. In view of the Full Bench decision, it is clear that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay a sum of Rs.71,500/- or Rs.72,000/- as price of apple boxes being carried in the truck. In regard to the second point it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company is liable for the personal injuries and as such the Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- only, assessed for personal injuries sustained in the accident and as such, the appeal deserves to be partly accepted. 8. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed partly to the extent that the Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- only to the claimant for the personal injuries sustained and the for the remaining amount of the value of the goods i.e. Rs.72,000/-the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same for which the claimant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The parties are left to bear their own costs.