Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 637 (JK)

United India Insurance v. Renu Devi

2013-11-05

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2013
1. These batch of Civil First Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the award dated 25th November, 2011 (for short, `impugned award') passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (for short, `MACT'), Srinagar, in claim petitions titled Smt. Hankaru Devi and another v. United India Insurance and anr.; Smt. Renu Devi and others v. United India Insurance and anr.; Smt. Dharam Devi and another v. United India Insurance and anr.; Mst. Jana Begum and others v. United India Insurance and anr.; Mr. Ragu Nath and another v. United India Insurance and anr.; Smt. Anita Devi and others v. United India Insurance and anr.; and Ghulam Nabi Masoodi and others v. Avtar Singh and another, whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants as per the assessment detailed in the award in each claim petition. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company, argued that the Driver was not having the effective and valid driving license, therefore, the insurer was not to be saddled with the liability as the same is not permissible under law. However, he has not questioned the adequacy of compensation. He has also not pressed into service any of the grounds urged in the memo of these appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants in all the appeals, barring appeal bearing CIMA No. 124/2012, argued that compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable, and that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned award. 4. Mr. A. R. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CIMA No. 124/2012, stated that the compensation awarded is meagre and multiplier applied is not as per the schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short `Act') coupled with the age of the deceased and of the claimants. 5. Admittedly, the owner-insured has not questioned the impugned order on any count, either by filing an appeal or by medium of cross appeals. The question is whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability? The answer has to be in affirmative for the following reasons. 6. Admittedly, in all these appeals claimants are the victims of a vehicular accident and are third parties. Being the third parties, they have filed claim petitions for grant of compensation. The provisions, i.e., Sections 165 to 176 contained in Chapter XII of the Act, being the social legislation, are for the benefit of the claimants. 6. Admittedly, in all these appeals claimants are the victims of a vehicular accident and are third parties. Being the third parties, they have filed claim petitions for grant of compensation. The provisions, i.e., Sections 165 to 176 contained in Chapter XII of the Act, being the social legislation, are for the benefit of the claimants. The Tribunal / Courts would not succumb to the procedure, technicalities, wrangles or tangles, but have to achieve the purpose by granting the compensation as early as possible. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured and the insurer is bound to satisfy the claim of the third parties, but rider is in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 147 to 149 Chapter XI of the Act. However, it is for the insurer to plead and prove that the insurer has committed willful default. For the sake of repetition, the owner has not questioned the impugned order, thus the Tribunal has rightly passed the award and has rightly saddled the appellant-Insurer with the right of recovery. 8. The apex Court has recently in Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, 2013 AIR SCW 609; S. lyyapan v. M/S United India Insurance Company, 2013 AIR SCW 3941, held that the right of compensation to third party cannot be defeated and insurer is to saddled with the liability but, at the same time, the insurer is to be given right of recovery provided that the insured carves out and proves a case in terms of mandate of Sections 147 and 148 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the only ground taken by the appellant has failed. 9. The claimants have not questioned the compensation awarded by the Tribunal except the claimants of CIMA No. 124/2012. However, I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the assessment made therein. To me, it appears just and appropriate. I record herein that the assessment made by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is just and appropriate, and cannot be said to be in anyway excessive or exorbitant or, at the same time, meagre. 10. Mr. A. R. Bhat, learned appearing counsel for the claimants in CIMA No. 124/2012 argued that the compensation awarded by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not just and proper. 10. Mr. A. R. Bhat, learned appearing counsel for the claimants in CIMA No. 124/2012 argued that the compensation awarded by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not just and proper. The argument is not tenable for the reason that the assessment made by the Tribunal in the impugned order in the said claim petition is legal, just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, his argument, being devoid of any force, is rejected. 11. In view of the above, I record my concurrence to the conclusions arrived at by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal in granting the award. I record my appreciation the way the Learned Presiding Officer has elaborately dealt with the matter in accord with the spirit and position of law governing the field. 12. At this stage, Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad, learned appearing counsel in CIMA No. 123/2012, made a statement at the Bar that the claimant, Mst. Jana Begum had passed away during the pendency of the appeal and her legal heirs are already brought on record as respondents 2 & 3 - claimants in the claim petition. His statement is taken on record. Mst. Jana Begum shall be deleted from the array of respondents and her share of compensation shall be disbursed amongst her legal heirs in equal shares, who are said to be already figuring as respondents 2 & 3 in the memo of appeal and claimants in the memo of claim petition. 13. In the aforementioned backdrop, the impugned order is upheld and all the Appeals including the Cross Appeal are dismissed. 14. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, after proper identification. Court fee shall be first charged. 15. Registry is also directed to remit the record forthwith alongwith a copy of this order to the Tribunal. It is also directed that the Registry shall keep photocopies of this judgment on each file. 16. All the Appeals are dismissed alongwith connected CMPs.