Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 882 (HP)

Shiam Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

2014-07-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 28.11.2006, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MAC petition No. 109 of 2004 titled Smt. Dhanni Devi and others versus Sh. Shiam Singh and another, to the extent of saddling the owner with the liability and discharging the insurer from the liability, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,76,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Apparently, the claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal below, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, as per the breaks-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The respondents resisted the claim petition by filing separate replies. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal below : “(i) Whether on 3.7.2004 at 11.30 AM at Daliya Pul, Pargna Tissa, Tehsil Churah Sh. Ram Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1, father of petitioners No. 2 and 3 and son of petitioners No. 4 and 5 died in a vehicular mishap due to rash and negligent driving of Himmat Singh, driver of the offending vehicle who also died in the accident, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR.1 (iv) Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the petition, as alleged? OPR.1 (v) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR.2. (vi) Whether the deceased was an unauthorized gratuitous passenger and his risk was not covered, as alleged? OPR.2 (vii) Whether the offending vehicle was being used in contravention to its authorized use, as alleged? OPR.2 (viii) Relief. 5. The claimants examined two witnesses and owner Shiam Singh himself also appeared in the witness box. 6. The insurer has not led any evidence. 7. The findings returned by the Tribunal on all issues are not in dispute. Only the dispute is to the extent of saddling the owner with the liability. Thus, the findings returned on all other issues are upheld and there is no need to discuss and return findings on those issues. 8. 6. The insurer has not led any evidence. 7. The findings returned by the Tribunal on all issues are not in dispute. Only the dispute is to the extent of saddling the owner with the liability. Thus, the findings returned on all other issues are upheld and there is no need to discuss and return findings on those issues. 8. The core question involved in this appeal is whether the insured came to be rightly saddled with the liability and insurer came to be rightly discharged from the liability. The answer is in negative, for the following reasons. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deciding the claim petition. It appears that the Tribunal is not aware how to deal with the claim petitions. The claim petitions are not a luxury litigation or is also not a litigation like civil suits. It should be decided, as early as early possible, by adopting summary procedure. The standard of proof as required in other cases, in terms of the mandate of Evidence Act is not required. 9. It is beaten law of the land now that the purpose of granting compensation to the victim is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims, as early as possible, and to save the victim from social evils and other stigmas and to provide cheap help, so that, they may not live in starvation. It is also beaten law of the land that the procedural wrangles and tangles and other technicalities have no role to play. The purpose of granting compensation has to be achieved. 10. Now adverting to the pleadings of the parties, it is specifically averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a labourer and was travelling in the offending vehicle, as a labourer. The owner has filed the reply and it is specifically pleaded that he was travelling in the said offending vehicle as a labourer. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the reply filed by the owner hereunder : “10. That para No. 10 of the petition is admitted to this extent that the deceased was travelling by the vehicle in question as a labourer to load and unload articles.” 11. The insurer has not led any evidence. No rejoinder to the said reply filed by the owner, has been filed by the insurer-respondent thus, reply filed by the owner is deemed to have been accepted. The insurer has not led any evidence. No rejoinder to the said reply filed by the owner, has been filed by the insurer-respondent thus, reply filed by the owner is deemed to have been accepted. It was for the insurer to rebut the same by filing rejoinder, in terms of the mandate of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which course was not, at all, adopted by the insurer. 12. At the cost of repetition, the insurer has not led any evidence thus, the evidence led by the claimants and insured remained un-rebutted. The owner has specifically pleaded and proved by leading evidence that he was not liable to pay the compensation. Having said so, the insurer was to saddle with the liability. 13. While having glance to insurance policy Ext. R-1, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the risk of labourer was covered. 14. As a corollary, the impugned award is set aside to the extent of saddling the owner with the liability and insurer is saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. 15. The learned counsel for the insurer is directed to deposit the amount before the Registry of this Court within three months from today and on deposit, the same shall be released to the owner/appellant through payee’s account cheque. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that he has already deposited the amount and the same stands disbursed to the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellant to produce proof before the Registrar (Judicial), regarding disbursement of the payment to the claimants. If the Registrar (Judicial) is satisfied that the appellant has deposited the amount and that stands disbursed to the claimants, the amount deposited by the insurer, be released to the owner through payee’s account cheque. 17. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of, as indicated above, alongwith pending applications. Send down the record, forthwith.