Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1325 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashwani Kumar

2015-09-18

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad M Mir 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 31st March, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 60-J/2004, titled Ashwani Kumar versus Shri Jalam Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,67,145/- with interest @ 7½% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and the insurer-appellant herein was saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant has not proved the rash and negligent driving of the driver, thus the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. The factums of insurance and adequacy of compensation are not in dispute. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings on Issue No. 1? Issue No. 1 reads as under:- “whether the respondent No. 1 had struck the offending vehicle pick up van owned by respondent No. 2 against the scooter of the petitioners on the road at Kotla on 16.5.04 and caused injuries to the petitioners? …OPP” 6. It was for the claimant to prove the factum of rash and negligent driving, has led evidence and proved the same. The insurer has not led any evidence to this effect. It was for the driver to question the said findings. He has not questioned the same. Thus, how the insurer can question the said findings. 7. However, I have gone through the findings returned by the Tribunal. It has rightly made discussion in paras 7 to 10 of the impugned award. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the impugned award. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 9. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 10. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the impugned award. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 9. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 10. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file. September 18 18, 2015.