Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 276 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar

2014-03-26

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.10.2013 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP (RBT) No.63-K/II/2010/08. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No.1 hired Mini-Truck No.PB-06G-9881 to ferry fruits and vegetables to Udhampur. The vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 Suresh Kumar. The truck met with an accident at 9.30 A.M. Respondent No.1 suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to a hospital. He suffered multiple injuries, including fracture of right hip joint. He remained under treatment at P.G.I., Chandigarh. He has spent Rs. 3 lakhs on his medical treatment. He filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala. He claimed a sum of Rs.8 lakhs for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. According to the averments contained in the petition, the vehicle was insured with appellant-Oriental Insurance Company for the period with effect from 30.4.2007 to 29.4.2008. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.3 has admitted the ownership of the Truck. The mini-truck was deployed for carriage fruits and vegetables. Respondent No.2 was the driver of the truck. The vehicle was comprehensively insured. According to them, appellant was liable to indemnify the owner. 4. The appellant also filed reply to the claim petition. The Insurance Company has admitted insurance cover provided to mini-truck No.PB-06G-9881 with effect from 30.4.2007 to 29.4.2008. However, it was stated that there was contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver was not in possession of effective Driving Licence. The vehicle was being driven without valid registration-cum-fitness certificate and route permit. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- to respondent No.1. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Deepak Bhasin has vehemently argued that vehicle was being driven without route permit. He also argued that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence. 6. I have heard Mr. Deepak Bhasin and have gone through the award carefully. 7. Respondent No.1 was medically examined by PW-1 Dr. G.D. Gupta. According to him, respondent No.1 has suffered 50% disability on account of girdle stone arthroplasty right hip. PW-2 Dr. He also argued that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence. 6. I have heard Mr. Deepak Bhasin and have gone through the award carefully. 7. Respondent No.1 was medically examined by PW-1 Dr. G.D. Gupta. According to him, respondent No.1 has suffered 50% disability on account of girdle stone arthroplasty right hip. PW-2 Dr. Sharad Prabhar has deposed that respondent No.1 had sustained head injury and dislocation of right hip. He was under treatment with effect from 1.3.2008. He was discharged on 17.3.2009. He has proved discharge certificate Ex.PW-2/A. Respondent No.1 has appeared as PW-3. He has stated the manner in which accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. He was in coma for about six months. He remained under treatment at P.G.I. Chandigarh. He has spent Rs. 3 lakhs on treatment. He is still under treatment. He has proved disability certificate Ex.PW-1/A. He has proved copy of FIR mark ‘X’. According to him, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as fruit and vegetable whole seller. He has also tendered in evidence copies of treatment record and vouchers Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-193. 8. According to the Insurance Policy Ex.RW-1/B, the vehicle has been provided comprehensive insurance cover with effect from 30.4.2007 to 29.4.2008. Driving Licence has been duly proved vide Ex.RW-1/C. Ex.RW-1/D is the endorsement of renewal of Driving Licence. Route permit of the mini-truck has also been proved vide Ex.RW-1/E. The truck was hired on 13.2.2008. The accident has taken place on the National Highway. Owner of the truck, in his cross-examination, has deposed about mark ‘A’. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to respondent No.1 under various heads, i.e. medical expenses, attendant and transportation, loss of earning, mental shock, pain and suffering, expectation of life, hardship, frustration, defection etc., amenities of life and material prospects and loss of future income. Respondent No.1 (claimant) was 23 years of age at the time of accident. Owner of vehicle has duly proved the Driving Licence. He has also proved that the vehicle in question was provided comprehensive insurance cover with effect from 30.4.2007 to 29.4.2008. Receipt mark ‘A’ has been issued by the office of Regional Transport Officer, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir bearing No. 0000868 whereby the goods tax @ Rs. 660/-has been charged vide draft No. 1396497 dated 4.1.2008 and counter signature fee of Rs. Receipt mark ‘A’ has been issued by the office of Regional Transport Officer, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir bearing No. 0000868 whereby the goods tax @ Rs. 660/-has been charged vide draft No. 1396497 dated 4.1.2008 and counter signature fee of Rs. 770/- has been received vide draft No. 08776533 dated 4.1.2008. It is, thus, evident that the owner, i.e. respondent No.3 has paid the necessary tax for plying mini-truck No.PB-06-G-9881 within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. No contrary evidence has been proved by the Insurance Company to impeach the statement of owner and mark ‘A’. The truck was having route permit and was also permitted to ply in the State of Jammu and Kashmir after the deposit of necessary fee, goods tax etc. in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir. There is no need to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.