Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 131 (HP)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamal Kishore

2014-02-28

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) The appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and have called in question the award dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Petition No. 21 of 2003 titled Kamal Kishore versus Sarvjeet Singh and others, on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal, ( for short “the impugned award”). 2. Brief Facts: Claimant-respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition, being the victim of vehicle of accident, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the facts and breaks-up given in the claim petition. The appellants and respondents No. 2 to 6 resisted the claim petition and following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 of vehicle No. HP-34- 3991? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled? ... OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 had not been in possession of valid and effective driving licences at the time of the accident, as alleged, if so, with what effect? ...OPR-5 & 6. 4. Relief. 3. Respondent No. 1-claimant has examined witnesses in support of his claim. The appellants and other respondents have also examined two witnesses. After examining the pleadings and scanning the material on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,51,139/- in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant, against the owner and driver of the Tractor namely Jagdish and Dhanna Ram, respondents No. 4 & 5 herein and saddled the insurer- appellants with the liability. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the impugned award is bad on two counts: i) that respondent No. 1-claimant was student and was traveling in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger; ii) that on account of collusion between the two vehicles i.e. Tractor and Tanker, both the owners were to be saddled with the liability. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the impugned award is bad on two counts: i) that respondent No. 1-claimant was student and was traveling in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger; ii) that on account of collusion between the two vehicles i.e. Tractor and Tanker, both the owners were to be saddled with the liability. 5. Both the arguments are not tenable and are devoid of merits for the following reasons: Claimant has led evidence to the effect that he was walking on the correct side of the road, was hit by the offending Tractor , which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and Tanker was driven by its driver on the correct side. The said stand of the claimant is proved by evidence and also corroborated by the fact that FIR No. 230 of 2002 dated 23.12.2002 was lodged at Police Station Barmana and investigation conducted. Finally, police challan was presented against the driver of the Tractor namely Dhanna Ram-respondent No. 5 herein. Thus, prima-facie, it can be said that Dhanna Ram has caused accident while driving the Tractor rashly and negligently. 6. The insurer-appellants have not led any evidence to prove that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was traveling in the Tractor at the relevant time. 7. The compensation awarded is meager, however, the claimant has not questioned the same. Viewed thus, the impugned award deserves to be upheld and appeal dismissed. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.