Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1247 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Changa Ram

2015-09-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 20th December, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.102 of 2005, titled Ghantha Ram vs. Dhiraj Guleria and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till deposit came to the awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer/appellant was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). 2. At the very outset, it may be placed on record that during the pendency of the appeal, the claimant had died and his legal representations were brought on record. 3. The owner, the driver and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 4. The insurer/appellant has questioned the impugned award viz. a viz. the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.4. 5. Onus to prove issue No.4 was on the appellant/insurer, has not led any evidence. As per the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly, Order 14, read with the mandate of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was for the insurer to lead evidence in order to claim exoneration. 6. It is well settled law that the insurer has to plead and prove that the insured has committed willful breach in view of the mandate of Sections 147 to 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, the Act), read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, as has been held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217. The insurer, in the instant case, has not been able to prove that the insured was in breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. 7. Having said so, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.4 need to be upheld. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the insured had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) of the Act. 7. Having said so, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.4 need to be upheld. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the insured had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) of the Act. Section 134(c) of the Act is not a part of Chapters X to XII of the Act, which deal with granting of compensation on ‘no fault liability’ and ‘fault liability’. Section 134 pressed into service by the learned counsel for the insurer/appellant falls in Chapter VIII of the Act, which deals with ‘control of traffic’. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, compliance of Section 134(c) can be made a ground for denying relief to the insured. Moreover, granting of compensation is a social legislation, which mandates that the compensation should reach to the victims of a vehicular accident as early as possible without succumbing to the niceties and technicalities of law and procedural wrangles and tangles. 9. Having said so, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the insurer/appellant is rejected, being afterthought and misconceived. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/insurer and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased-claimant in equal shares.