Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 583 (HP)

Superintending Engineer v. Tilak Raj

2014-05-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 1st April, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba, Division Chamba (HP) (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 41/2006, titled as Tilak Raj versus The Executive Engineer & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,93,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent herein, and against the respondents-appellants herein, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the filing of the claim petition, i.e. 7th December, 2006, till its realization, (for short, the “impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 2.The claimant is the victim of a vehicular accident, which was caused by Surinder Singh, the Driver employed in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Division Holi, District Chamba, H.P., while driving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-46-0153, rashly and negligently, on 01.09.2006, at about 3.10 p.m., at Bagga, Tehsil and District Chamba, in which Driver Surinder Singh and brother of the claimant, namely, Surinder Kumar lost their lives. FIR was lodged. The claimant had filed claim petition and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3.The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 15.06.2007: “1. Whether on 1.9.2006 at about 3.10. PM at Bagga, Teh. and District Chamba, Sh. Surinder Kumar, brother of petitioner died in a vehicular mishap due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HP 46-0 153 by its driver Surinder Singh who also perished in this accident, as alleged? ....OPP 2.If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ....OPP 3.Whether the petition isnot maintainable, as alleged? ...OPR 4. Whether the deceased was not traveling in the offending vehicle nor died in the accident of this vehicle, as alleged? ...OPR 5.Relief.” 4.The claimant-respondent had examined four witnesses in support of his case and had also appeared himself in the witness box. The respondents-appellants had examined two witnesses, namely, Ravinder Kumar Minhas, Executive Engineer and Harsh Puri, Assistant Engineer, in support of their case. ...OPR 5.Relief.” 4.The claimant-respondent had examined four witnesses in support of his case and had also appeared himself in the witness box. The respondents-appellants had examined two witnesses, namely, Ravinder Kumar Minhas, Executive Engineer and Harsh Puri, Assistant Engineer, in support of their case. 5.The witnesses examined by the claimant- respondent have proved that deceased Surinder Kumar was traveling in the said vehicle; Driver Surinder Singh and deceased Surinder Kumar had stopped at tea stall, Bagga to take tea; they again boarded in the said vehicle; the vehicle met with the accident; the vehicle drowned in river Ravi and the dead body of Driver Surinder Singh was recovered, whereas the dead body of deceased Surinder Kumar was recovered after 12-13 days of the incident. All the witnesses have deposed that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of Driver Surinder Singh. All these facts are recorded in the FIR, which were not controverted by the respondents-appellants, thus stand proved, rather admitted. 6. One of the witnesses of the respondents, i.e. RW-2 Harsh Puri, has deposed that they have settled the dispute with the claimant-brother of the deceased, outside the Court, meaning thereby, they have admitted the factum of the accident and death of deceased Surinder Kumar was outcome of the same. 7.The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, held that the claimant has proved that Driver Surinder Singh had caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving, in which deceased Surinder Kumar, brother of the claimant, had lost his life. The Tribunal, after thrashing all the aspects, held that the claimant has lost his bread- earner and held him entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.1 Rs. 93,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 8. Neither the respondents-appellants nor the claimant-respondent have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 9. Driver Surinder Singh was in the employment of the State Government-appellant, thus keeping in view this fact, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in favour of the claimant and against the appellants- respondents and they came to be rightly saddled with the liability. 10.The learned Assistant Advocate General has not addressed any arguments on Issue No. 3. 9. Driver Surinder Singh was in the employment of the State Government-appellant, thus keeping in view this fact, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in favour of the claimant and against the appellants- respondents and they came to be rightly saddled with the liability. 10.The learned Assistant Advocate General has not addressed any arguments on Issue No. 3. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. 11.Coming to Issue No. 4, it is covered by the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 and has rightly been decided against the respondents-appellants by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. 12.Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal.The same is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 13.The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 14.Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.