Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 448 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anju Bala

2014-04-24

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): This appeal is instituted against the award dated 3.10.2013, rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, in M.A.C. No.25-J/II/08. 2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that respondents No.1 to 3/claimants (hereinafter referred to as “claimants” for the sake of convenience) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the claim petition, on 27.12.2007 Ganesh Dutt, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, was going on a motorcycle No.HP-54-1610 from Fatehpur to Rehan. At about 7.40 P.M, when he reached near Moach Bridge, Kamal Jeet Singh, respondent No.5 came at the spot while driving Maruti Van No.HP-54-8022 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the van with the motor cycle of Ganesh Dutt, as a result of which, Ganesh Dutt died Ganesh Dutt was earning more than Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from his agricultural work and he was having a tractor and trolley. 3. Reply was filed by respondent No.5, owner and driver of the van in question. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. He was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Company for the sake of convenience) filed separate reply. According to the Insurance Company, respondent No.5 was not carrying a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the Insurance Policy. 5. Separate rejoinders were filed by the claimants. 6. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the issues on 23.9.2010 and vide award dated 3.10.2013 awarded a sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- in favour of the claimants along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 20.3.2008 till the date of deposit of amount. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation amount. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 7. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the deceased Ganesh Dutt had contributed towards the accident. According to her, proper multiplier has not been applied. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and have also gone through the impugned Award carefully. 9. It is not disputed that the accident took place on 27.12.2007. 7. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the deceased Ganesh Dutt had contributed towards the accident. According to her, proper multiplier has not been applied. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and have also gone through the impugned Award carefully. 9. It is not disputed that the accident took place on 27.12.2007. PW2 Pawan Kumar was the eye witness of the incident. He deposed the manner in which the accident took place. According to him, while overtaking a bus, respondent No.5 hit the motorcycle of Ganesh Dutt, as a result of which Ganesh Dutt died. He was present at the time of the accident. According to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5. PW3 HHC Tilak Chauhan proved copy of the FIR, Ext.PW3/A. The respondents produced photographs of the spot, Ext.RW2/B and Ext.RW2/E. Learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.5 on the basis of statement of PW2 Pawan Kumar, FIR Ext.PW3/A and photographs Ext.RW2/B and Ext.RW2/E. 10. Age of the deceased, as per matriculation certificate, was 39 years at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4500/- and awarded a sum of Rs.5,55,000/- after applying multiplier of 15 years. The multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is proper. 11. Respondent No.5 admitted that he was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Registration certificate of van No. HP-54-8022 has also been proved vide Ext.RW4/C. It was valid upto 27.7.2022. The van was insured vide Ext.RW4/D. It was insured w.e.f. 29.6.2007 to 28.6.2008. Thus, the insurance company has failed to prove that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No.5 without valid registration certificate and in violation of insurance policy. 12. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Advocate, has relied upon criminal proceedings, which have arisen on the basis of FIR Ext.PW3/A. According to her, the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. She has referred to the site plan, Ext. RW2/A and photograph, Ext. RW2/B in criminal case. 12. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Advocate, has relied upon criminal proceedings, which have arisen on the basis of FIR Ext.PW3/A. According to her, the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. She has referred to the site plan, Ext. RW2/A and photograph, Ext. RW2/B in criminal case. As noticed above, the learned Tribunal has rightly rendered the finding that it was respondent No.5, who was driving the van in rash and negligent manner on the basis of statement of PW2 Pawan Kumar, FIR Ext.PW3/A and photographs Ext.RW2/B and Ext.RW2/E. According to photographs, Ext. RW2/B and Ext. RW2/E, the van driven by respondent No.5 was standing on the right side of the road. RW2 Sanjeev Kumar, who had taken the photographs of the spot, deposed that there was white strip on the road dividing the same into two sides and the van was found towards right side of the strip. Thus, it is duly proved that the van was being driven by respondent No.5 on the wrong side of the road. The investigation in FIR, Ext. PW3/A was carried out by RW3 HC Rajesh Kumar. He also testified that the vehicle was found towards right side of the road. He also admitted that the accident could be avoided if respondent No.5 had not driven the van towards right side of the road. Moreover, it was not open for the Insurance Company to challenge the manner in which the accident had taken place. Learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the oral as well documentary evidence. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned award rendered by the learned Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.