Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1784 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Sharma

2014-11-28

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-State has questioned the award, dated 31st August, 2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 22-K/05, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,82,500/- with interest at the rate of 7½% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents 1 to 4, herein and against the State, being the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. Gypsy bearing registration No. HP-47-0022 (for short, the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count, thus it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. Only the insured-owner-the State, has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 4. The claimants being victims of the vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-, on the ground that driver Badri Narayan, was driving Gypsy bearing registration No. HP-47-0022, rashly and negligently, on 05.01.2005, at about 3.25 p.m., near Chowk Rasood, P.W.D. Road, Ranital, Tehsil and District Kangra, struck against Scooty (Kinetic Nova) bearing registration No. HP-40A- 1800 driven by deceased Joginder Pal Sharma; sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries; FIR No. 3/2005, dated 05.01.2005, was registered in Police Station, Haripur. 5. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the accident was the outcome of the contributory negligence of the drivers of the gypsy and the scooty and the Tribunal has fallen in error. 6. Admittedly, the claimants have specifically pleaded in para-24 of the claim petition that the said accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. 7. The State in para 24 of the reply to the claim petition denied the same, but has stated that the accident was the outcome of the negligence of the drivers of the scooty and the bus. 8. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence, held that driver, namely, Badri Narayan, has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on the date of accident; the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 9. 8. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence, held that driver, namely, Badri Narayan, has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on the date of accident; the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 9. It is apt to mention herein that FIR No. 3/2005 was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle; investigation was conducted; challan was presented against him in the Court of competent jurisdiction and the Tribunal called CW-1 ASI Negi Ram as Court witness, who has stated before the Tribunal that he had conducted the investigation and came to the conclusion that driver Badri Narayan, has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, as is recorded in para-10 of the impugned judgment. The State or the driver has not been able to demolish his statement. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in para-10 of the impugned judgment. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle, rashly and negligently, on the date of the accident. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the driver has not questioned the said findings and how the employer can question the same, when there is a relationship of master and servant between them. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation is on higher side. I have gone through the impugned award. The amount awarded is meager, but the claimants have not questioned it. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal are upheld. 13. Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal. The same is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 14. 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 payees account cheque. 15. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.