Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1461 (HP)

Suriba Industries v. Labh Singh

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 15.01.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, Camp at Nalagarh (for short "the Tribunal") in Petition No. 22NL/2 of 2007, titled as Labh Singh versus Anjani Tripathi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,46,845/with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the appellants herein (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimant-injured has not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to him. 3. The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 4. The claimant-injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. ten lacs on the ground that he sustained injuries in the vehicular accident, which was caused by Shri Anjani Tripathi, while driving the scooter, bearing registration No. HP12B3247, on 12.04.2007, near Forging Factory, Jharmajri, rashly and negligently. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 17.05.2008: "1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Relief." 7. The claimant-injured has proved by leading evidence that he has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, which is not in dispute. 8. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the claimant-injured has proved that the driver, namely Shri Anjani Tripathi, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. the scooter, bearing registration No. HP12B3247, rashly and negligently, on 12.04.2007, near Forging Factory, Jharmajri and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. The Tribunal, after making assessment in paras 12 to 14 of the impugned award, has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,46,845/in favour of the claimant-injured and the appellants herein came to be saddled with liability. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and the appellants are not liable to satisfy the award. When he was confronted with the claim petition, the reply, evidence, oral as well as documentary and the discussions made by the Tribunal in paras 12 to 14, was not able to satisfy the Court that the awarded amount is excessive in any way. Rather, the amount awarded is too meager, but, as the claimant-injured has not questioned the same, the same is upheld. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 2 are also upheld. 11. Having said so, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 12. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.