Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1049 (HP)

Amar Nath v. Deli Devi

2015-08-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Appellant-insured, by the medium of instant appeals, has questioned the awards, dated 20th October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No. 22 of 2007, titled Deli Devi vs. Amar Nath & Another, and Claim Petition No. 21 of 2007, titled Bantu Devi vs. Amar Nath and Another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each, with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants, in both the claim petitions, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short, the impugned awards). Cross Objections No. 324 of 2009 & 356 of 2009 2. The Claimant Deli Devi has preferred Cross objections No. 324 in 2009 in FAO No. 671 of 2008 and the claimant Bantu Devi has preferred Cross Objections No. 356 of 2009 in FAO No. 672 of 2008, for enhancement of compensation. 3. As the appeals and the cross objections arise out of one accident, therefore, they are taken up together for final disposal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27th March, 2006, the claimants, in both the claim petitions, were traveling in a Taxi bearing No. HP-33T-9825, which was being, allegedly, driven by the driver, namely, Amar Nath rashly and negligently. The offending vehicle met with an accident as a result of which both the claimants sustained multiple injuries. Thus, the claimants filed separate claim petitions and sought compensation as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petitions. 5. The Claim Petitions were resisted by the respondents on various grounds. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the pleadings of the parties, framed following similar issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a mother accident caused on 27.3.06 at Sumli on Patlikuhal-Pangan road due to rash and negligent driving of tempo-trax bearing Regn. No. HP-33-T-9825 by its owner-cum-driver-respdt No. 1? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-1. 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2. 5. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR-1. 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2. 5. Whether the petitioner was traveling as gratuitous/unauthorized passenger in the vehicle in question at the time of accident? OPR-2. 6. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respdt-1. If so its effect? OPR-2. 7. Relief. 7. Parties led their evidence. After scanning the evidence, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. However, the Tribunal saddled the insurer with the liability at the first instance, with right of recovery from the owner, on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Amar Nath was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Feeling aggrieved, the owner has filed the instant appeals. 8. The claimant has also questioned the impugned awards on the ground of adequacy of compensation by way of filing Cross Objections, as detailed above. 9. Thus, following issues arise for determination in the present appeals: 1. Whether the Tribunal has rightly granted right of recovery to the insurer? 2. Whether the amount awarded in favour of the claimants is adequate? 10. I have gone through the impugned awards and the entire record. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Amar Nath was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. 11. Registration certificate of the vehicle has been proved on record as RW-3/A, wherein it is mentioned that the un-laden weight of the offending vehicle was 1660 kg. Thus, the offending vehicle, in terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, comes under the definition of “light motor vehicle”. 12. A perusal of the copy of the driving licence Mark X shows that driver Amar Nath was competent to drive a Car/Jeep/Tractor and the said license was valid at the time of accident. Thus, the offending vehicle, in terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, comes under the definition of “light motor vehicle”. 12. A perusal of the copy of the driving licence Mark X shows that driver Amar Nath was competent to drive a Car/Jeep/Tractor and the said license was valid at the time of accident. Therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle, can be said to be having the driving license to drive vehicles falling within the definition of “light motor vehicle”, thus, was having a valid and effective driving licence. 13. In view of the above, it can safely be concluded that the Tribunal has fallen in an error while holding that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Amar Nath was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not sustainable and the same are set aside. 14. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are not sustainable on another count. The Tribunal below vide impugned award passed in Claim Petition No. 40 of 2006, titled Kubza Devi and Others vs. Amar Nath and others, Ext.RA, arising out of the same accident, held the insurer liable to pay the compensation. During the course of hearing, it was informed that no appeal is pending viz-a-viz the said findings recorded by the Tribunal. 15. Having said so, it is held that the owner has not committed any willful breach and the findings recorded by the Tribunal to that extent are set aside and the insurer is saddled with the liability. 16. Now coming to the adequacy of compensation, the Tribunal in both the Claim Petitions (i.e. Claim Petition No. 22 of 2007, subject matter of FAO No. 671 of 2008, and Claim Petition No. 21 of 2007, subject matter of FAO No. 672 of 2008), has awarded Rs. 50,000/- each (Rs. 25,000/- towards permanent disability suffered by the claimants and Rs. 25,000/- towards expenses for treatment), excluding the amount already granted as interim compensation. However, the Tribunal has not granted compensation to the claimants under the head pain and suffering. Further, no compensation has been granted for the loss of earning during the period when the claimants remained under treatment. 17. Accordingly, I deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/- each as compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of earning and Rs. However, the Tribunal has not granted compensation to the claimants under the head pain and suffering. Further, no compensation has been granted for the loss of earning during the period when the claimants remained under treatment. 17. Accordingly, I deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/- each as compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of earning and Rs. 10,000/- under the head special diet etc., in addition to the amount already awarded. 18. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal with effect from the date of impugned award. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount alongwith interest within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, after proper identification. The Registry is also directed to refund the entire amount, if any, deposited by the owner-appellant, alongwith up-to-date interest. 19. The appeals filed by the Owner and the Cross Objections filed by the Claimants are allowed and the impugned awards are modified, as indicated above.