Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1459 (HP)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bori Devi

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 16.12.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in R.B.T. No. 12S/2 of 2005/2001, titled as Smt. Bori Devi and another versus Sh. Gangesh Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,58,000/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization alongwith costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver, namely Shri Misar Dass, was not driving the offending vehicle, i.e. canter, bearing registration No. HP332951, rashly and negligently on 27.07.1998, thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the appellant-insurer with liability. 4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer revolve around the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1. 5. Before I deal with issue No. 1, I deem it proper to record herein that the appellant-insurer had to discharge the onus relating to issues No. 3 to 7, has not led any evidence to prove the said issues, rather, has not pressed the same. There is also not even a whisper in the memo of appeal that the findings recorded in para 24 of the impugned award are wrong. Even otherwise, the appellant-insurer has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, issues No. 3 to 7 are decided in favour of the claimants and against the appellant-insurer. 6. Now coming to issue No. 1, as discussed hereinabove, the appellant-insurer has not led any evidence, thus, the evidence led by the claimants has remained unrebutted. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence led by the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have perused the evidence and the discussions made by the Tribunal in paras 10 to 16 and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. 8. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence led by the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have perused the evidence and the discussions made by the Tribunal in paras 10 to 16 and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. 8. It is beaten law of land that granting of compensation is a welfare legislation and hypertechnicalities, mystic maybes, procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play and cannot be made ground to defeat the claim petitions and to defeat the social purpose of granting compensation. 9. In the claim petitions, as is held by the Apex Court and this Court in a series of cases, strict proof is not required and the claimants have to prove the rashness and negligence of the driver, by leading evidence, that too, prima facie. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings on issue No. 1 and the same are accordingly upheld. 11. The amount awarded is too meager, which, unfortunately, has not been questioned and is reluctantly upheld. 12. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 13. 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. 14. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.