Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 449 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savitri Devi

2014-04-24

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral):. This appeal is instituted against the award dated 12.6.2013, rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in M.A.C. No.42 of 2006. 2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that respondent No.1/claimant (hereinafter referred to as “claimant” for the sake of convenience) filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-on account of death of her son, Sikander Singh, in a motor vehicle accident involving motor cycle bearing registration No.HP-23B-1052 and tractor bearing registration No.HP-69-0314. The accident took place on 4.8.2006. 3. According to the claimant, on 4.8.2006 Sikander Singh was driving motor cycle No.HP-23B-1052 in a careful manner and Jai Kumar was pillion rider. When Sikander Singh reached near Dangar, a tractor No.HP-69-0314 being driven by respondent No.3, Vijay Kumar, on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner, struck the motorcycle driven by Sikander Singh. Sikander Singh died on the spot and Jai Kumar sustained multiple injuries. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted at Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin. According to the claimant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. Sikander Singh was 26 years old at the time of accident in question. He was working in a Finance Company as Manager and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimant was dependent upon him. 4. The replies were filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, owner and driver of the tractor in question respectively. According to them, the motor cycle was being driven by the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.3 did not hit the motor cycle nor drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Company for the sake of convenience) filed separate reply. According to the Insurance Company, vehicle in question bearing registration No.HP-69-0314 did not have fitness certificate and valid route permit. It was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The tractor was being driven by an unauthorized person, who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. 6. Separate rejoinders were filed by the claimant. 7. It was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The tractor was being driven by an unauthorized person, who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. 6. Separate rejoinders were filed by the claimant. 7. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the issues on 9.3.2010, inter alia following two issues:- “6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driver by a person who was not having a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-3. 7. Whether tractor No.HP-69-0314 was being plied, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act? OPR-3.” 8. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 12.6.2013 awarded a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of amount. The compensation amount was ordered to be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of three months, failing which the Insurance Company was liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 9. Mr. Aswhani K. Sharma, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the tractor in question was being driven by an unauthorized person, who had no valid and effective driving licence. He then contended that the tractor did not have valid fitness certificate and route permit. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and have also gone through the impugned Award. 11. What emerges from the facts, enumerated hereinabove, is that it is not disputed that the accident took place on 4.8.2006. According to RW3, Vijay Kumar, motorcycle was being driven by Sikander Singh in a rash and negligent manner. He lost control over motor cycle and hit it against a parapet. However, RW2 Surinder Kumar deposed that when the motorcycle was overtaking, driver of the tractor tried to save the motorcyclist. Since the motor cycle was at high speed, it struck against the tractor. The motorcyclist died on the spot. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin. Copy of the postmortem report is Ext.P3. FIR, Ext.P11 was also registered. The claimant has duly proved on record that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. The motorcyclist died on the spot. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin. Copy of the postmortem report is Ext.P3. FIR, Ext.P11 was also registered. The claimant has duly proved on record that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. Sikander Singh died due to injuries received by him in the motor vehicle accident. PW2 Kishori Lal, who was an eye witness, deposed the manner in which the accident took place. The FIR discloses the manner in which the accident took place. Tendering of FIR was not objected to by the respondents. 12. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 26 years. The age of the claimant was 54 years. Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.3000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- after applying multiplier of 11 years. 13. Now, the court will advert to whether respondent No.3 was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor in question at the time of accident or not. 14. RW4 Suresh Kumar, an official from the office of RLA Ghumarwin, testified that licence No.GDL-9573/05 dated 19.7.2005 was issued in the name of Vijay Kumar for driving Light Motor Vehicle, Tractor-NT. He placed on record abstract of licence vide Ext.RW4/A. It was valid upto 18.7.2008. In cross-examination, he admitted that respondent No.3 as per licence Ext.RW3/B was authorized to drive a tractor. There was a specific endorsement in the driving licence to drive the tractor by respondent No.3. Thus, respondent No.3 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, i.e. 4.8.2006. 15. The Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove issue No.7. The insurance company has failed to prove that the tractor was being driven in violation of any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act including fitness certificate. 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. 16. 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.