Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1300 (HP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hima Devi

2014-09-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The insurer has filed the appeal being FAO No. 68 of 2007, against the award dated 11.1.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Mandi, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 15 of 2001 titled Smt. Hima Devi vs. Sh. Kesari Lal & others, for short “the impugned award”, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in asking the insurer to satisfy the award. 2. The owner has filed the appeal being FAO No. 69 of 2007, on the ground that the Tribunal has insurer. 3. The claimant has not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus the impugned award attained finality, so far as it relates to the claimant. 4. The owner/insured has also not questioned the impugned award on any other ground, except saddling the liability and right of recovery. Brief facts. 5. It is averred that the deceased was travelling as a labourer in a tractor bearing registration No.HP-31-3175, which met with an accident and so many persons sustained injuries, including deceased, namely, Thakur Singh who succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 47 of 1999, dated 27.4.1999 came to be registered in police station Karsog. The claimant being mother of the deceased had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The insurer and insured resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed by about 11 a.m. at village Hiundi when he met with accident of tractor bearing No. HP-31-3175 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP. (ii) If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative and whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder? OPR-1 (iv) Whether the driver of the vehicle, who was driving at the time of accident was not having effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the insurance policy? OPR-3. (v) Relief. 7. The parties have led evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,400/- with 7½% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 9. OPR-3. (v) Relief. 7. The parties have led evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,400/- with 7½% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 9. There is no dispute viz-a-viz issues No. 1 and 3. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. Findings on issues No. 2 and 4 are in dispute so far as the same relate to the saddling of the liability and right of recovery. 10. The clamant has led evidence that driver, namely Ramesh Chand had driven the tractor aforesaid rashly and negligently and caused the failed to prove that claim petition was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Even otherwise, the mother being victim of a vehicular accident, filed claim petition and was maintainable in terms of police report and in terms of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Accordingly findings on issue No. 3 are upheld. 11. The compensation granted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate or excessive in any way. The insurance policy is on the file. The Tractor was insured and risk of the driver was covered. Even otherwise, tractor cannot carry passengers. The Tribunal has rightly scanned the evidence and document Ext. RA at page 45 of the record, which do disclose that risk of third party and driver was covered and risk of labourer was not covered. Thus, the findings on issues No. 2 and 4 are accordingly upheld. 12. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Send down the record, forthwith.