Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 24 (HP)

JEEVAN SINGH v. HARDEV SINGH

2014-01-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, 1. Challenge in this appeal is laid to the award and order, dated 28.9.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour at Nahan, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.169-MAC/2 of 2004, titled as Hardev Singh v. Raj Kumar and others, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was granted in favour of the claimant, to be paid by the insurer, with a right of recovery from the owners i.e. appellants in the present appeal, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged in the Claim Petition, are that on 7.7.1996, at about 8.00 p.m. near Bhatrog, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, the tractor bearing No.HP-17- 5255, which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, met with an accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries, who was working as labourer. The claimant preferred the claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. Owners-appellants questioned the impugned award by way of filing the present appeal. 3. Owners, driver and the insurer contested the Claim Petition by filing objections. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether the petitioner Hardev Singh sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of Tractor No.HP-17-5255 on 7.7.1996 at 8 PM near village Bhatrog, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, being driven by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled? OPP 3. Whether no accident took place with tractor No.HP-17-5255 as alleged? OPR-1 to 4. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-1 to 4. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition? OPR-1 to 4. 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-4 7. Whether the petition is collusive? OPR-4 8. Whether the driver of the Tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving license? OPR-4. 9. Relief." 4. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition? OPR-1 to 4. 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-4 7. Whether the petition is collusive? OPR-4 8. Whether the driver of the Tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving license? OPR-4. 9. Relief." 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not returned findings on Issues No.6 and 8 and without determining the said issues, the Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the award, with a right of recovery. Therefore, it was argued that the impugned award is bad, so far as it relates to grant of right of recovery to the insurer. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents also admitted that it is a fact that without determining issues No.6 and 8, the impugned award came to be passed. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants argued that it is the insurer who has to satisfy the impugned award and that the right of recovery was wrongly given to the insurer. Thus, the only question is - whether the right of recovery has rightly been granted in favour of the insurer, without determining Issues No.6 and 8? 6. I have gone through the impugned award. It is a fact that the learned Tribunal was in great slumber in making the impugned award without returning findings on issues No.6 and 8. It is an eye opener for him. 7. In view of the above discussion, I deem it proper to remand the case to the Tribunal below with the direction to decide issues No.6 and 8 as per the pleadings and evidence already available on record. 8. Parties through their counsel are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 3rd March, 2014. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith, so as to reach the Tribunal well before the date fixed. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications, if any.