Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1110 (HP)

Neem Chand v. Jagar Nath

2015-08-14

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 17th January, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (HP), (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Case No. 55 of 2004, titled as Jagar Nath versus Neem Chand & Another whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,70,300/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1, herein and against the driver-cum-owner-appellant herein, for short, the impugned award. 2. Jagar Nath, claimant and the insurer-New India-Insurance Company Limited have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Neem Chand, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle-Tractor bearing registration No. HP-24-A-1137, has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery to the insurer. 4. Heard. 5. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant-injured was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger or otherwise? It appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error for the following reasons. 6. The claimant has specifically averred inpara-24 of the claim petition that he was hit by the offending tractor, which was being driven by Neem Chand, rashly and negligently, on 18.10.2003, at about 6.30 p.m. at village Jukhala, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforesaid para of the claim petition herein:- “24. That on ill fated day of 18.10.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., at village-Jukhala, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. while the petitioner was coming to his house, the tractor of respondent No. 1 which was being driven by him rashly and negligently fell down and the petitioner who was standing on the side of the road was hit by the tractor and suffered injuries including fracture of his left leg.” 7. The driver-cum-owner has not denied the averments contained in the aforesaid para in his reply. The pleadings which are not specifically denied, are deemed to have been admitted. 8. The driver-cum-owner has not denied the averments contained in the aforesaid para in his reply. The pleadings which are not specifically denied, are deemed to have been admitted. 8. It is also beaten law of the land that in order to determine the rashness and negligence in the claim petitions, strict pleadings and proof are not required, claim petitions are to be determined, summarily and the hyper-technicalities, mystic maybes, procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play. 9. Having said so, the averments contained inpara-24 of the claim petition stand admitted, how can it lie in the mouth of the insurer that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 10. The claimant has examined Prakash Singh as PW-2, Babu Ram as PW-3 and Dr. Mukand Lal as PW-4 and also placed on record copies of FIR, disability certificate, discharge slip and other documents, which do disclose that the claimant was hit by the offending vehicle on 18.10.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., at village Jukhala, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., FIR No. 34/2 of 2004, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against driver, Neem Chand and a criminal case is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. 11. In the given circumstances, it is held that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and in granting right of recovery to the insurer. The insurer has to satisfy the award and is fastened with liability without right of recovery. 12. The insurer-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 14. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.