Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1151 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar

2015-08-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 18th September, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Kangra at Dharamshala (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MACP No.30-D/2003, titled Sh. Vinod Kumar vs. Smt. Kaushala Devi & others, whereby a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability on the ground that the owner-insured has committed willful breach, which revolves around issues No.3 and 4. Issue No.3 4. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, has not been able to prove the same. However, I have gone through the FIR (Ext. RW2/A), driving licence (Ext. RW1/A) and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 11 & 16 and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence. The insurer has not led any evidence to discharge the onus. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in paragraph 16 of the impugned award. Accordingly the findings returned on issue No.3 are upheld. Issue No.4. 5. I wonder why this issue was framed and how the claim petition can be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was for the insurer to lead evidence to prove the same, has not led evidence, thus, has failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings on issue No.4 are also upheld. 6. The amount awarded is very meager, cannot be said to be excessive in any way. 7. The impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 8. In the given circumstances, the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the findings on issue No.4 are also upheld. 6. The amount awarded is very meager, cannot be said to be excessive in any way. 7. The impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 8. In the given circumstances, the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 9. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payees’ account cheque, after proper identification. 10. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.