Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1024 (HP)

Gopal Singh v. Ravinder Kumar

2014-08-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Perusal of record do disclose that respondents No. 2 and 3 have been duly served and power of attorneys have also been filed on their behalf. But, today there is no representation on their behalf. Hence, respondents No. 2 and 3 are set ex-parte. 2. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-insurer has called in question the award, dated 14th May, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 72/02; 38/2005, titled as Sh. Gopal Singh versus Sh. Ravinder Kumar & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 65,252/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the amount and insurers of both the vehicles, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 5, were saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award), on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Brief facts: 2. The claimant-injured became the victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the drivers of two buses, bearing registration Nos. HP-33-2469 and HP-51-4145, on 3rd November, 2001, at about 2.00 P.M., near place Chakar on Ner Chowk-Mandi road, while driving both the offending vehicles rashly and negligently, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries, remained admitted at Zonal Hospital, Mandi from 3rd November, 2001 to 10th November, 2001. The claimant-injured filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The owners-insured and the insurers of both the offending vehicles-buses contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 4. The Tribunal, after scanning the pleadings and the documents, framed the following issues on 18th March, 2009: “1. Whether the petitioner on 3.11.2001 at about 2.00 P.M. near Ner-Chowk sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No. HP-33-2469? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent? OPP 3. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No. HP-51-4145? OPR-1 4. OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent? OPP 3. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No. HP-51-4145? OPR-1 4. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus No. HP-33-2469? OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of bus No. HP-33-2469 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2 6. Whether the bus No. HP-33-2469 was not insured with the respondent No. 2? OPR-2 7. Whether there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? OPR-2 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 9. Whether the bus No. HP-51-4145 was not insured with respondent No. 5 as alleged? OPR-5 10. Whether the driver who is alleged to have been driving the vehicle/bus No. HP-51-4145 was not having valid and effective driving licence as alleged? OPR-5 11. Whether the vehicle No. HP-51-4145 at the time of accident was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-5 12. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPR-5 13. Relief.” 5. The parties have led the evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held the claimant-injured entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 65,252/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount and saddled the insurers of both the offending vehicles, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 5, with liability. 6. The respondents have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relate to them. Only the claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 7. I have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimant- injured remained under treatment from 3rd November, 2001 till 20th November, 2001 and for seventeen days, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 2,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. Though, the disability certificate of the claimant-injured, Ext. PW-3/A, describes that the claimant-injured has suffered 5% permanent disability, but it is no where stated nor the claimant-injured has led any evidence to show that it has affected the earning capacity of the claimant-injured. 8. 2,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. Though, the disability certificate of the claimant-injured, Ext. PW-3/A, describes that the claimant-injured has suffered 5% permanent disability, but it is no where stated nor the claimant-injured has led any evidence to show that it has affected the earning capacity of the claimant-injured. 8. The Tribunal has granted compensation to the claimant-injured under the heads of 'medical expenses', transportation expenses', attendant charges', 'loss of income', loss of future income', pain and sufferings', 'future discomforts' and 'inconvenience and hardship'; is more than sufficient, needs no interference. 9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 65,252/- as compensation to the claimant-injured, though it is not warranted. However, the respondents have not questioned the same, accordingly, it is upheld. 10. Having said so, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 11. Registry to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 12. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.