Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1186 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandeep Kumar

2015-08-28

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II), Shimla in M.A.C. Petition No. 71-S/2 of 06/05, titled Sandeep Kumar versus Chetan Chauhan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,18,200/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. The owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer, by the medium of FAO No. 565 of 2008 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and owner has committed willful breach. Thus, the insurer was not liable. 4. The claimant has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 561 of 2008, on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 5. The learned counsel for the insurer has argued that the insurer has taken a specific plea before the Tribunal that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and issue No. 3 was framed. The insurer has not proved the said fact. However, I have gone through the pleadings. The claimant in para 10 of the claim petition specifically averred that the claimant was traveling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, which is admitted by the owner and driver by filing reply to para 10 of the claim petition herein. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the claim petition herein: “10.Yes the injured was traveling in the ill fated utility jeep at the time of accident as he was going from Kotkhai to Chaknol in the capacity of owner of goods. It is submitted here that the injured with other occupant of the ill fated jeep were carrying.” 6. It is also apt to reproduce para 10 of the reply to para 10 of the claim petition herein: “10. Contents of para-8 to 10 of the petition are admitted. The petitioner and other occupants were traveling in the capacity of owner of the goods in the ill fated Jeep.” 7. It is also apt to reproduce para 10 of the reply to para 10 of the claim petition herein: “10. Contents of para-8 to 10 of the petition are admitted. The petitioner and other occupants were traveling in the capacity of owner of the goods in the ill fated Jeep.” 7. Having said so, there is no need to lead evidence to prove that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. It is not the case of the insurer that there was collusion between the owner, driver and the claimant. However, I have gone through the impugned award and perused the record, which do disclose that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the insurer was liable. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. 8. I have gone through the impugned award. It appears that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, cannot be said to be inadequate or excessive in any way. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld. 9. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, within six weeks from today in the Registry, if not already deposited. On deposit, the entire amount be released to the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of, alongwith pending applications if any. 11. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.