Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1243 (HP)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sham Lal

2015-09-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of both these appeals is the judgment and award, dated 05.02.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 42 of 2006, titled as Sham Lal and another versus Ravi Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,71,000/with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, against the respondents and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 184 of 2009 on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 216 of 2009 on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed cross objections in both the appeals on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in recording findings of rash and negligent driving against them. FAO No. 184 of 2009 5. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability? The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons: 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer argued that the driving licence was issued on 12.02.2001 and on that date, the driver was not eighteen years of age, thus, the driving licence issued was not a valid and effective driving licence in terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act"). 7. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons: 8. The accident has taken place on 03.08.2006. On the said date, the driver was more than eighteen years of age, rather was twenty years of age and the driving licence was renewed from time to time, which is evident from the record. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly returned the findings in paras 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment. 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has committed any willful breach. No such evidence has been led. 10. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly returned the findings in paras 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment. 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has committed any willful breach. No such evidence has been led. 10. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference. 11. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. FAO No. 216 of 2009 12. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. 13. I have gone through the record read with the impugned judgment and of the considered view that no case for enhancement is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed. Cross Objections No. 404 and 426 of 2009 14. The cross-objections filed by the owner-insured and the driver are misconceived. Hence, dismissed. 15. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file. 17. Copy of this judgment be placed on each of the connected files.