Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1452 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sushila

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) These appeals and the cross-objections are the outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Khatri Ram, while driving truck, bearing registration No. HP174454, rashly and negligently on 21.02.2011, at about 11.30 A.M. near Tillourdhar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in which Shri Sanjay and Shri Mehmood sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries, constraining the claimants to file two claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan (for short "the Tribunal"), which came to be determined and compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants vide separate awards, dated 12.04.2013 (for short "the impugned awards"). 2. The owner/insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, have attained finality so far these awards relate to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned awards on the grounds that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, thus, the owner/insured has committed a willful breach and that the insurance policy was not subsisting at the time of the accident. 4. The claimants have questioned the impugned awards by the medium of cross-objections on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the parties frankly conceded that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and is neither meager nor excessive. 6. Thus, the only question to be determined in these appeals is whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability? The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons: 7. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a truck and the claimants have pleaded in paras 5 and 23 of the claim petitions that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as labourers and were doing the job of loading and unloading lime stones, sand, bricks and bajri etc. The owner/insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have filed the replies and have not denied the said factum, but have admitted the same. Thus, there is admission on the part of the owner/insured and the driver of the offending vehicle that the deceased were labourers with the offending vehicle. 8. The insurance policy, Ext. R1 is on record, which does disclose that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 5 + 1', and risk of five persons and driver was covered. Thus, there is admission on the part of the owner/insured and the driver of the offending vehicle that the deceased were labourers with the offending vehicle. 8. The insurance policy, Ext. R1 is on record, which does disclose that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 5 + 1', and risk of five persons and driver was covered. Thus, the risk of the deceased was covered. The insurance policy was effective w.e.f. 28.10.2010 to the midnight of 27.10.2011. The accident has taken place on 21.02.2011. Thus, the insurance policy was subsisting. 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. 10. It is apt to record herein that the insurer has not led any evidence to prove its defence and has failed to discharge the onus. On that count also, the findings on issues No. 3 to 6 are to be upheld and are upheld accordingly. 11. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned awards are to be upheld, the appeals and the cross-objections merit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned awards are upheld and the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed. 12. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the respective impugned awards after proper identification. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.