Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1535 (HP)

National Insurance Company v. Mohinder Paul

2015-10-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the insurer has questioned the award dated 16th May, 2008, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 76 of 2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,75,157/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and against the insurer-appellant herein, (for short, “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant, insured/owner-cum-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-Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on the ground taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer has argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the insurer with liability for the reason that the risk of the claimant was not covered. 5. In order to determine the said issue, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case, which has given birth to the present appeal. 6. On 5.12.2003, the claimant was traveling in vehicle-Ambassador Car bearing registration No.CH-6009, from Lathiani to Barsar, which was being driven by driver, namely, Harpal Singh, rashly and negligently, and caused the accident at about 4.15 a.m., at ‘Khooni Mod’, Galu Barsar, sustained injuries, was referred to the Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. Thereafter, he remained admitted in the Rajendra Medical Hospital, Patiala, constraining him to file claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of their reply. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 05.12.2003 involving car bearing No.CH 6009, being driven and owned by respondent No. 1?…OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?…OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident and if so, its effect? …OPR-2 4. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?…OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident and if so, its effect? …OPR-2 4. Whether the offending car was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged and if so, its effect? …OPR-2 5. Relief.” 9. Parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, passed the impugned award, whereby a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,75,157/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and liability was fastened upon the insurer. Issue No. 1. 10. The claimant has proved issue No. 1. Otherwise, there is no dispute on this issue. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 & 4. Issues No. 3 & 4. 12. The onus to prove issues No. 3 & 4 was upon the insurer, has failed to lead any evidence. It was upon the insurer to plead and prove that owner/insured has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues are upheld. Issue No. 2. 13. The amount awarded is neither meager nor excessive. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 14. I have gone through the entire record. It is recorded in the insurance policy that seating capacity is ‘5’. Thus, the risk was covered. 15. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made discussion and saddled the insurance company with the liability. 16. Accordingly, no interference is required. The impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 17. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 18. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.