Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1530 (HP)

Noop Singh v. Sobha Ram

2015-10-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 06.06.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 95 of 2005, titled as Sobha Ram versus Sh. Noop Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,177/- with interest @ 7.5% 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 the insurer was directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimant-injured and the insurer 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 owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery to the insurer. Brief facts: 4. The claimant-injured sought compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he alongwith his partner Shri Hukam Chand hired the offending vehicle, i.e. jeep, bearing registration No. HP-65-0733, on 27.07.2005, for transporting cabbage and cauliflower from Village Kulthani to Hamirpur and after selling the same, when they were coming back in the said vehicle, which met with accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, sustained injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital, Gohar, wherefrom he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1.Whether the respondent No. 2 was driving the Jeep No. HP-65-0733 on 27- 7-2005 at 7 P.M. at place Salahar Mode in a rash ad negligent manner resulting in injuries to the petitioner as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so as to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was travelling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident in Vehicle No.HP-65-0733 as alleged? OPR 4. OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so as to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was travelling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident in Vehicle No.HP-65-0733 as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance police as alleged? OPR 5. Relief." 7. Parties have led evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and because of his negligence, the claimant-injured has sustained injuries and saddled the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle with liability. Issues No. 1 and 4: 9. There is no dispute about issues No. 1 and 4. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 4 are upheld. Issues No. 2 and 3: 10. The adequacy of compensation is not in dispute. The appellants have questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 to the extent whereby they have been saddled with liability. 11. The Tribunal has specifically held that the claimant has failed to prove that he was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith vegetables. Even the owner-insured has denied the said factum in his reply. 12. I have gone through the record. There is not even a single iota of evidence to hold that the claimant had hired the offending vehicle for transporting the vegetables and while coming back, the said vehicle met with the accident. Rather, it was proved that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. 13. The claimant has specifically averred in para 24 (i) and (ii) of the claim petition that he and his partner had hired the offending vehicle for carrying their agricultural produce. The owner-insured, though, has not denied the contents of para 24 (i), but in reply to para 24 (ii) of the claim petition has admitted that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Then, how can he now turn around and say that the pleadings made by the claimant are correct. 14. The owner-insured, though, has not denied the contents of para 24 (i), but in reply to para 24 (ii) of the claim petition has admitted that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Then, how can he now turn around and say that the pleadings made by the claimant are correct. 14. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 2 and 3 are upheld. 15. In view of the above, the impugned award is to be upheld and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. 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 after proper identification. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.