Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1187 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Singh

2015-08-28

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The awards, impugned in these appeals, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), are the outcome of one accident caused by respondent/driver Karam Singh, while driving Jeep (Mahendra) bearing No.HP-31-4731 rashly and negligently, on 8th March, 2004. Therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Tribunal, after examining the entire evidence, held that the claimants have proved their case and accordingly, passed separate awards in each Claim petition granting compensation in favour of the claimants and the insurer/appellant came to be saddled with the liability, for the reasons given in each award. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has filed the instant appeals challenging the impugned awards, on the grounds taken in the memos of the appeals. The owner and the claimants have not assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal, thus, the same have attained finality so far as these relate to them. 4. During the course of hearing, Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-owner, namely, Karam Singh argued that the instant appeals merit to be dismissed in view of the fact that Claim Petition No.51 of 2004, arising out of the same accident, was decided by the Tribunal by saddling the insurer with the liability. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants filed appeal, being FAO No.97 of 2006 and sought enhancement of the compensation, and the insurer challenged the same by way of FAO No.109 of 2006 on the ground that the Tribunal had wrongly fastened the insurer with the liability. The said appeals were disposed of by this Court, by a common judgment, dated 11th September, 2009, whereby the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed and the appeal filed by the insurer came to be dismissed. It was further stated by Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, that the said judgment passed by this Court has attained finality. 5. The record of FAO No.97 of 2006 was called for. The appeal was the outcome of the same accident. Thus, the insurer is caught by law of resjudicata and estoppel. 6. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that the insurer is not liable. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the insurer with liability. 7. Having said so, the impugned awards are upheld and the instant appeals are dismissed. Thus, the insurer is caught by law of resjudicata and estoppel. 6. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that the insurer is not liable. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the insurer with liability. 7. Having said so, the impugned awards are upheld and the instant appeals are dismissed. A copy of this judgment as also the judgment, dated 11th September, 2009, passed in FAO No.97 of 2006, be placed on the record of each file.