Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1120 (HP)

Sita Devi v. Ashwani Kumar Mahajan

2014-08-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) All these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely, Shri Kishori Lal, while driving vehicle-Utility bearing Registration No. HP-07-4427, belonging to one Shri Ashwani Kumar Mahajan, rashly and negligently, on 25.10.2002, at about 8.15 a.m., at place Dagal in village Giana in Kararaghat-Kashlog road, as a result of which, one person, namely, Hukam Chand, traveling in the said vehicle sustained injuries; succumbed to the injuries; other two persons namely, Jaswant Singh and Kala Devi who were also travelling in the said vehicle, sustained multiple injuries, constraining the legal representatives of deceased Hukam Chand; aforesaid Jaswant Singh and Kala Devi to file three different claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- II, Solan, District Solan, hereinafter, referred to as “the Tribunal”. Thus, I deem it proper to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment. 2. In FAO No. 1/2007 the appellants-legal representatives of deceased Hukum Chand, have questioned the award, dated 18th September, 2006, passed by the Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 27-S/2 of 2003/02, titled as Smt. Sita Devi & others versus Shri Ashwani Kumar Mahajan & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,13,200/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants No. 1 to 4 herein and against driver Kishori Lal-respondent No. 2 herein, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-I), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. FAO No. 2 of 2007 is directed against the award, dated 18th September, 2006, passed by the Tribunal in MAC Petition 28-S/2 of 2002, titled as Jaswant Singh versus Shri Ashwani Kumar Mahajan & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant herein and against the driver (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-II”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. 80,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant herein and against the driver (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-II”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. In FAO No. 4 of 2007, the appellant-claimant has questioned the award, dated 18th September, 2006, passed by the Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 26-S/2 of 2002 titled as Smt. Kala Devi alias Kala Wati versus Shri Ashwani Kumar Mahajan & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant herein and against the driver, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-III), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 5. In all the three claim petitions, it is averred that driver, namely, Kishori Lal had driven vehicle-Utility bearing Registration No. HP-07-4427, belonging to one Shri Ashwani Kumar Mahajan, rashly and negligently, on 25.10.2002, which met with an accident at about 8.15 a.m., at place Dagal in village Giana in Kararaghat-Kashlog road, as a result of which, one person, namely Hukam Chand, sustained injuries; succumbed to the injuries and other two persons namely, Jaswant Singh and Kala Devi sustained multiple injuries, while traveling in the said vehicle. 6. I deem it proper to record herein that neither the insurer nor the driver nor the owner-insured have questioned the impugned award, thus it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. Only, the claimants have questioned the impugned awards on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 7. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling only the driver with liability. 8. I wonder, how the claimants can question the impugned awards on the ground of saddling only the driver with liability. The driver has not questioned the same. The claimants have prayed for compensation which stands granted, thus cannot be said to be “aggrieved” in terms of the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the MV Act”. It is apt to reproduce Section 173 of the M.V. Act herein: “173. The driver has not questioned the same. The claimants have prayed for compensation which stands granted, thus cannot be said to be “aggrieved” in terms of the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the MV Act”. It is apt to reproduce Section 173 of the M.V. Act herein: “173. Appeals.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.” 9. Any person aggrieved by an award can prefer an appeal. The words “aggrieved person” are defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as under:- “Aggrieved person. See Aggrieved party. One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested. The word “aggrieved” refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation.” 10. In Law Lexicon, the words “aggrieved person” are defined as under:- “Aggrieved person.-A person can be said to be aggrieved, if apart from the general interest such a person, as a member of the public, may have, he has a particular or special interest in the subject-matter supposed to be wrongly decided.” 11. I have gone through the impugned awards. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,13,200/- in MAC Petition No. 27-S/2 of 2003/02, Rs. I have gone through the impugned awards. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,13,200/- in MAC Petition No. 27-S/2 of 2003/02, Rs. 80,000/- in MAC Petition 28-S/2 of 2002 and Rs.70,000/- in MAC Petition No. 26-S/2 of 2002 to the claimants, which is adequate and cannot be said to be meager. 12. Having said so, the appeals are not maintainable and merits to be dismissed; are dismissed as such and the impugned awards are upheld. 13. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the record.