Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1960 (HP)

Kaula Ram v. Kusum Sood

2014-12-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 26.02.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Track Court, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 93/2004, RBT No. 19-2005, titled as Kaula Ram versus Smt. Kusum Sood & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short, the “impugned award'). Brief facts: 2. Shri Kaula Ram became victim of a vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by Dhan Raj, driver, while driving bus bearing registration No. HP-34-A-1025, rashly and negligently, on 16.11.2003, at about 2.45. p.m., at village Dhunkhra, near Village Pirdi, Tehsil and District Kullu, which collided with Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. HP-32-5758, in which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant filed the claim petition, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The respondents, i.e. the insured-owner, the driver and the insurer-United India Insurance Company contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 21.06.2005: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. HP-34-A-1025 by respondent No. 2?... OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of the compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?...OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR-3 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties?...OPR-3 5. Relief.” 5. After scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the bus was not involved in the accident, but the same was caused by driver Suresh Kumar, who was driving Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No. HP-32-5758. 6. I have gone through the impugned award and the record of the claim petition. 7. It is a fact that FIR No. 522/2003 was lodged in Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu. Investigation was conducted and during investigation, it was found that driver of the Swaraj Mazda, namely, Suresh Kumar, was involved in the accident, but he had died in the said accident. Challan, i.e. closure report was filed in the Court for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle had died in the accident. Investigation was conducted and during investigation, it was found that driver of the Swaraj Mazda, namely, Suresh Kumar, was involved in the accident, but he had died in the said accident. Challan, i.e. closure report was filed in the Court for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle had died in the accident. 8. It appears that the Presiding Officer has not taken into consideration the aim and object of granting compensation. It was for the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the claimant to array the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, as party respondents, in the claim petition, in view of the mandate of Section 158 (6) read with Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned award and remand the case to the Tribunal, with a direction to afford an opportunity to the claimant to lay a motion for arraying the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, as party respondents, in the claim petition. 10. The Investigating Officer, ASI Krishan Lal, Police Station, Sadar, Kullu, who is present in the Court, is directed to submit the copy of final report of FIR No. 522/2003 alongwith particulars of the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal, on the next date of hearing, enabling the claimant to do the needful. 11. The present respondents are deleted from the array of the respondents. 12. The claimant, through his counsel, is directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 2nd March, 2015. 13. Registry to send the record of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment forthwith so as to reach the Tribunal below well before the date fixed.