Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1250 (HP)

Sita Rani v. Managing Director, HRTC

2015-09-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 21st February, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.45 of 2005, titled Sita Rani and others vs. The Managing Director, HRTC and others, whereby the Claim Petition filed by the claimants came to be dismissed, (for short the impugned award). 2. Facts, as pleaded in the Claim Petition, in brief, are that on 18th October, 2004, the deceased, was coming from Delhi to Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. in his own car bearing No.DL-8CJ-8576, being driven by claimant No.3 (son of the deceased). When the said Car reached at Gutkar, a bus bearing No.HP-33-3921, belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (for short, HRTC), being driven by its driver, namely, Jai Ram, rashly and negligently, hit the said car, resulting into injuries to the deceased, who was taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where he succumbed to the said injuries. Thus, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs. 3. Respondents, including the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling (respondent No.4 in the Claim Petition), resisted the claim petition and filed the replies. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled: “1. Whether the respondent No.3 was driving the bus bearing No.HP-33-3921 at 9:30 am at place Gutkar, District Mandi, H.P. in a rash and negligent manner resulting in death of Bhushan Lal as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so as to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the maruti car No.DL-8 CJ-8576. If so, its effect? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the petition is not legally maintainable as alleged? OPR (1 to 3). 6. Whether the driver of the maruti car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged? OPR (4). 7. Relief.” 5. Parties led their evidence and the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that that Claimant No.3, son of the deceased, was driving the Car rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. 6. OPR (4). 7. Relief.” 5. Parties led their evidence and the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that that Claimant No.3, son of the deceased, was driving the Car rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. In the Claim Petition, the claimants have averred that the driver of the bus, namely, Jai Ram (respondent No.3), was driving the bus rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. However, FIR was lodged against Claimant No.3, who was driving the car at the relevant point of time and it was prima facie proved that the driver of the bus had not driven the bus rashly and negligently. On the contrary, it was prima facie proved that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of Claimant No.3. The Tribunal after going through the insurance policy of the offending Car has held that since the deceased was traveling in the offending Car, therefore, in terms of the insurance policy, his risk was not covered. 8. The aim and object of the provisions contained in Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), is that, while granting compensation under the Act to the victims of a vehicular accident, strict proof is not required. Even vague pleadings cannot be made a ground for dismissing a claim petition. 9. The Act has gone a sea change and sub section (6) to Section 158 and sub section (4) to Section 166 have been added. Section 158(6) provides that the Incharge of the Police Station concerned has to submit a report about the traffic accident to the Tribunal having the jurisdiction and that report has to be treated as Claim Petition by the Tribunal in terms of Section 166(4) of the Act. Thus, even filing of claim petition is not mandatory for grant of compensation in terms of the said amendment. 10. It is proved that the deceased, namely, Bhushan Lal, became victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by claimant No.3, while driving the car in question, in which the insured (deceased) was traveling alongwith his family. Thus, claimants No.1 and 2, being the widow and the daughter, are entitled to compensation because they have lost source of dependency. 10. It is proved that the deceased, namely, Bhushan Lal, became victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by claimant No.3, while driving the car in question, in which the insured (deceased) was traveling alongwith his family. Thus, claimants No.1 and 2, being the widow and the daughter, are entitled to compensation because they have lost source of dependency. However, it can be held that the son of the deceased i.e. Claimant No.3, who caused the accident, may not be entitled to compensation, but that will not deprive the widow and the daughter from reaping the fruits of the social legislation, which is aimed at to provide relief to the victims of the vehicular accidents, enabling them to receive the compensation. 11. The insurance policy of the Car in question was not on the file. Ms. Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for the insurer, produced a copy of the insurance policy, a perusal of which shows that the offending car was having the sitting capacity of four persons. The risk of third party and four persons i.e. driver, owner and other two persons was covered. The insured was traveling in the vehicle at the time of accident and the driver was his son. Thus, the risk of both was covered in terms of the insurance policy, in which it is recorded that the risk of owner-driver is covered. Even, as per the insurance policy, the sitting capacity of the vehicle has been mentioned as four, meaning thereby that the driver and three other occupants were covered in terms of the policy. Thus, how it can be held and said that the claimants, at least Claimants No.1 and 2, are not entitled to compensation. 12. Keeping in view the discussion made by the Tribunal in the impugned award read with the discussion made hereinabove, it is held that the deceased became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely, Tarun Rana, while driving the Car rashly and negligently. The claimants have pleaded in the Claim Petition that the deceased was earning Rs.17,000/- per month and was the only source of income, at least for claimants No.1 and 2 i.e. the widow and the daughter. 13. However, as per the policy, the risk of the owner and driver is covered for Rs.2.00 lacs. The claimants have pleaded in the Claim Petition that the deceased was earning Rs.17,000/- per month and was the only source of income, at least for claimants No.1 and 2 i.e. the widow and the daughter. 13. However, as per the policy, the risk of the owner and driver is covered for Rs.2.00 lacs. Thus, I deem it proper to award Rs.2.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the impugned award i.e. from 21st February, 2008, till final realization, in favour of Claimants No.1 and 2 and saddle the insurer i.e. respondent No.4 with the liability. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the same be released in favour of Claimants No.1 and 2 in equal shares. 14. The impugned award is set aside and the claim petition is granted, as indicated above.