Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1038 (HP)

MADAN LAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

2013-12-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
JUDGEMENT MANSOOR AHMAD J. - 1. CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the award, dated 30th November, 2005, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MACC No. 58.S/2 of 1998, titled as Smt. Manjit Kaur and others versus Shri Madan Lal & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,51,000/- was granted in favour of the claimants, respondents No. 2 to 5 herein, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award") on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 2. PARTIES are in lis right from 25th April, 1998 for the following reasons: Respondent No. 6 herein, Shri Babu Ram, who was driving the vehicletruck bearing registration No. HPA1088, rashly and negligently, on 26th October, 1997, while coming to Shimla, hit a scooter bearing registration No. CHL4151 near Kwara Chowki, Shogi. DeceasedJaswant Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Claimantsrespondents No. 2 to 4 herein filed a claim petition for grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, on 25th April, 1998, and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 3. THE ownerinsured, insurerInsurance Company and the driver contested the claim petition. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and documents on record, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident, in question, took place due to rash or negligent driving of truck No. HPA1088, as alleged ? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether Jaswant Singh died as a result of the accident and the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the insured has caused breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged, if so its effect? ...OPP 4. Whether the man who was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident did not possess a valid and effective driving license, if so its effect? ...OPR3 5. Relief. " 4. THE Tribunal, after examining the entire record, granted the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,51,000/ with interest @ 12% per annum and saddled the Insurance Company with the liability. ...OPR3 5. Relief. " 4. THE Tribunal, after examining the entire record, granted the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,51,000/ with interest @ 12% per annum and saddled the Insurance Company with the liability. The insurerrespondent No. 1 herein, feeling aggrieved, had questioned the said award by the medium of FAO No. 427 of 2001, titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Manjit Kaur & others, and the findings recorded by the Tribunal viz aviz issues No. 1 to 3 and 5 were upheld by this Court vide judgment, dated 27th September, 2005 and the findings recorded on issue No. 4 were set aside. The case was remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to decide issue No. 4 afresh. The owner insured and the insurer were asked to lead evidence. 5. THE parties have not questioned the judgment and order, dated 27th September, 2005, passed by this Court in FAO No. rt 427 of 2001, as such, it has attained finality. Thus, the only dispute between the parties is revolving around issue No. 4, which reads as ou under: "4. Whether the man who was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident did not possess a valid and effective driving license, if so its effect? ..OPR3" 6. THE insured appellant and insurer respondent No. 1 have led evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the evidence led by the insured and the insurer and has come to the conclusion that the driver, Babu Ram, was not having the effective driving licence, rather it was a case of fake licence. Thus, the issue has been decided against the insured appellant and in favour of the insurer respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved, the insured appellant questioned the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the insurer had to prove that the insured had committed willful breach and the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the liability on the appellant. 7. THE arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, though attractive, are devoid of any force, for the reason that the challenge is based on issue No. 3, which has already been decided by the Tribunal and by this Court against the insured appellant and it has attained finality. 7. THE arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, though attractive, are devoid of any force, for the reason that the challenge is based on issue No. 3, which has already been decided by the Tribunal and by this Court against the insured appellant and it has attained finality. Thus, the appellant cannot seek relief in terms of issue No. 3, which stands already decided against him. 8. LEARNED counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that licence was valid and effective one. Rather, his case was that though it is a case of fake licence, the owner has played its own role. As issue No. 3 has already been decided against the owner insured, the same cannot be the ground to question the impugned award. Having said so, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.