Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1145 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Veena Devi

2015-08-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 17th November, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No.77-D/II/2006, tilted Smt. Veena Devi and another vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The insured/owner, the driver and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Only the insurer has challenged the impugned award on two grounds, namely – i) the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer with the liability since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence; and ii) the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 4. I have gone through the impugned award and the record of the case and am of the opinion that both the aforesaid grounds are not tenable in the eyes of law, for the following reasons. 5. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle and the offending vehicle was a Light Motor Vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the insurer to argue that the driver of the offending vehicle was not competent to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paragraph 16 of the impugned award while deciding issue No.6 and the same are liable to be upheld. 6. Coming to the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation. The deceased, a student, was 12 years of age at the time of accident. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on the face of it, is too meager. Since the claim ants have not questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld. 7. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the insurer and the same is dismissed. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on the face of it, is too meager. Since the claim ants have not questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld. 7. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the insurer and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award.