Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1026 (HP)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tripta Devi

2014-08-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Both these appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company and are being disposed of together since the same are the outcome of one vehicular accident. In FAO No.170 of 2011, challenge is to the award, dated 18th January, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, in Claim Petition No.02/2010, titled Tripta Devi and others vs. Kishore Kumar and others, and in FAO No.172 of 2011, the Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 31st January, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una both the Claim Petitions were allowed by the Tribunals below, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned awards). Brief facts 2. The Claim Petitions are the outcome of a vehicular accident, which was, allegedly, caused on 13.12.2009, at about 4.00 p.m., opposite Kalia Petrol Pump, Una, by Kishore Kumar, driver, while driving the bus bearing registration No.HP-72-0187 rashly and negligently. As alleged, the offending bus hit the scooter being driven by deceased Jarnail Singh and one Baksho Devi was traveling on the said scooter as a pillion rider, as a result of which both Jarnail Singh and Baksho Devi sustained injuries and lateron succumbed to the same. Claimants of Jarnail Singh and Baksho Devi preferred claim petitions claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs and Rs.10.00 lacs, respectively, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petitions. 3. Claim Petitions were resisted by the insurer-appellant, the owner and the driver, by way of filing replies. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Tribunals below and the parties led their evidence. 5. The Tribunals below, after scanning the evidence on the record, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,77,000/-with 9% interest, in favour of claimants Tripta Devi and others in Claim Petition No.2 of 2010, and Rs.3,56,000/- alongwith interest No.170 of 2011 and FAO No.172 of 2011, respectively. 6. Neither the claimants nor the driver/owner questioned the impugned awards on any ground. Only the insurer has questioned both the awards on the ground that the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. 6. Neither the claimants nor the driver/owner questioned the impugned awards on any ground. Only the insurer has questioned both the awards on the ground that the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. The insurer has not taken this ground before the Tribunal nor has led any evidence to that effect, though Issues No.4, 5, 7 and 8 were framed and the onus to prove the said issues was on the insurer, in which it has failed. I have gone through the impugned awards, which are well reasoned and the same deserve to be upheld. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in both the appeals and the same are dismissed. Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned awards. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of FAO No.172 of 2011.