Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 676 (HP)

Pann Dei @ Paan Devi v. Paan Devi

2014-05-30

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) This appeal is the outcome of the judgment and award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, Division, Chamba, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 44 of 2005, titled as Smt. Paan Devi and others versus Smt. Paan Devi and others, arising out a vehicular accident, allegedly caused by driver Nurmo respondent No. 7 herein while driving the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-45-0738 (Mahindra Pick-up) on 22.11.2002 at about 5 p.m. at Matoono Morh near Jot, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Apparently, in the aforesaid accident, Budhi Ram sustained the injuries and succumbed to the same, constraining the claimants Smt. Paan Dei and others, respondents herein to file claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below, referred to above. FIR of the accident was lodged in police station Chowari District Chamba, H.P. 3. The owner, driver and insurer contested the claim petition by filing separate replies. The owner and driver have admitted the accident and death of the deceased. However, the insurer took up the stand that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the conditions of the insurance policy and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether Shri Budhi Ram late husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 died on 22.11.2002 at 5 p.m. at Matoono Morh near Jot in a vehicular mishap involving vehicle No. H P45-0738, as alleged? ....OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the conditions of the Insurance Policy as alleged? .....OPR-3. (v) Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, hence respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation as alleged? .....OPR-3 (vi) Relief. 5. OPR-3. (iv) Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the conditions of the Insurance Policy as alleged? .....OPR-3. (v) Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, hence respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation as alleged? .....OPR-3 (vi) Relief. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence oral as well as documentary, led by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the owner-insured, namely, Smt. Paan Devi. 6. Smt. Paan Devi, owner has questioned the same by way of filing the present appeal. It is apt to record herein that the insurer, driver and claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus the award attained finality so far as it relates to them. 7. The owner/appellant has questioned the impugned award so far as it relates to the saddling of liability and exonerating the insurer from the liability and has also questioned the same on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 8. I have gone through the impugned award, pleadings, evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. I am of the considered view that claimants have proved by leading evidence that the offending vehicle was being driven by driver Nurmo which caused the accident in which deceased Budhi Ram was travelling, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, the findings on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Before I deal issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal issues No. 3, 4 and 5. 10. Admittedly, the driver has placed on record the copy of the driving licence exhibited as Ext. R-1 on 9.10.2006 before the Tribunal below. It is crystal clear from the record that the said driving licence has been issued in the name of some Ram Bilas and not in favour of driver Nurmo respondent No. 7 herein. There is no document on the file which would go to show that Nurmo was having driving licence even at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to show whether the driver was having driving licence at the time of the accident, he failed to do so. 11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence and record rightly held that the driver was not having driving licence at the time of accident. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to show whether the driver was having driving licence at the time of the accident, he failed to do so. 11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence and record rightly held that the driver was not having driving licence at the time of accident. 12. The insured has not led any evidence to prove that he has examined the driving licence at the time of engagement of the driver. There is nothing on the record that the appellant has taken due care and caution. Thus, the owner has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, issues No. 3, 4 and 5 are decided against the owner and the findings recorded on these issues are upheld. It is the duty of the Tribunal to provide/grant relief to helpless and hapless claimants, who are victims of a vehicular accident, as early as possible Issue No. 2. 13. The claimants have proved that they have lost bread-earner of their family and Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.2,52,000/- in favour of the claimants. However, the claimants have not challenged the adequacy of compensation thus, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 14. Having said so, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is meager and cannot be said to be excessive, in any way. Thus, findings recorded by the Tribunal are borne out from the record, require no interference. As such the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 15. Send down the record.