Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1649 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi

2014-11-14

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Short controversy involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability while making the award dated 8th May, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur (for short ?the Tribunal?) in Claim Petition No.63 of 2005, titled Maya Devi & others vs. Anant Ram and others, whereby a sum of Rs.4,88,425/-alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short the ?impugned award?). 2. Deceased Bahadur Singh became the victim of vehicular accident, which was alleged to have been caused by the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.HP-33-1670 being driven rashly and negligently on 14.4.2005 at Jahu Kalan (Talai), District Hamirpur at about 8.30 p.m. The deceased sustained injuries and later on succumbed to the same. 3. Precisely, the case of the claimants is that the deceased was driving Scooter bearing registration No.HP-22-1201, was hit by the tractor, which was suddenly stopped by the driver at the place of accident, the tractor hit the scooter, the deceased sustained injuries and lateron succumbed to the same on 16.4.2005. The pillion rider escaped unhurt. FIR was lodged. Claim petition was filed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. The insurer, owner and the driver contested the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Shri Bahadur Singh had died on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 of Tractor No. HP-33-1670? 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.2 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if not with what effect? OPR-3 4. Whether Shri Bahadur Singh had contributed to the accident as alleged, if so, with what effect? OPR-3. 5. Relief.? 6. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,88,425/-. 7. PW-2 Basudev was a pillion rider. He has given details how the accident had occurred. Whether Shri Bahadur Singh had contributed to the accident as alleged, if so, with what effect? OPR-3. 5. Relief.? 6. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,88,425/-. 7. PW-2 Basudev was a pillion rider. He has given details how the accident had occurred. Virtually, he has stated that he was a pillion rider on the scooter and the tractor was being driven by the driver, which was suddenly stopped by the driver in order to alight a person and hit the scooter, deceased Bahadur Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the same lateron. He is the only eye witness to the accident and has supported the claim of the claimants. 8. The respondents have also led evidence. RW-2 has stated that the tractor was stationary, enabling Amar Singh to alight. Thus, his statement also supported the case of the claimants. 9. The insurer and owner of the tractor have not examined any other person in order to prove that the deceased was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. 10. Having said so, prima facie, it appears that the driver of the tractor was driving the tractor rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.1 against the respondents and in favour of the claimants. 11. The other issues are not in dispute. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on those issues are also upheld. 12. Viewed thus, no case is made out for interference and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Dismissed as such. 13. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque, after proper identification. 14. Send down the record.