Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1043 (HP)

AKHTAR BEG v. ASHWANI KUMAR

2013-12-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. By the medium of this appeal, the owner has questioned the award, dated 16.3.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba, in MAC Petition No. 79 of 2003, titled as Ashwani Kumar versus The National Insurance Company & Others, (for short, impugned award), whereby an amount of Rs. 1,46,580/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, was granted in favour of claimant, namely, Ashwani Kumar and against the owner, namely, Akhtar Beg, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 11.10.2002, at about 8.20 P.M., at Zero Point, Bharmaur Chowk, Chamba Town, the claimant was going on foot to his residence, was hit by scooter bearing No. HP-48-1294, which was being driven by respondent No. 3 rashly and negligently, as a result of which both the legs of the claimant got fractured. He was taken to Zonal Hospital, Chamba, from where he was referred to Bhinder Hospital, Pathankot and was operated upon. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8.00 lacs, as per the breakups given in the petition. 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-48-1294 on 11.10.2004 by its driver namely Akhtar Beg-respondent No. 2 in which the petitioner received injuries, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OP parties. 3. Whether the scooter bearing No. HP-48-1294 was not having a valid RC at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-1. 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident, as alleged? OPR. 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being used in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-1. 5-A. Whether the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR 6. Relief. 3. OPR. 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being used in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-1. 5-A. Whether the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR 6. Relief. 3. The Tribunal, after scanning the entire evidence, decided only issues No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,46,580/- in favour of the claimant. However, the liability was fastened on the Insurance Company/respondent No. 1 with a right to recover the award amount from the owner of the scooter, who is the appellant in the present appeal. 4. The only ground pressed into service during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was duly insured and the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the liability with him and exonerating the insurer. 5. I have gone through the memo of appeal and the impugned award. Driver Naseem Mirza is the son of owner Akhtar Beg, who, at the time of accident was minor, had driven the scooter rashly and negligently and was also not possessing a valid driving license. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that the Insurance Company was to be saddled with the liability is devoid of any force. The appellant has committed willful breach of the terms of the insurance policy. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed as such along with all pending applications, if any.