Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1537 (HP)

New India Assurance Company v. Anoop Kumar

2015-10-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 25th May, 2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba (HP) (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 52 of 2008, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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 a the insurer-appellant herein was saddled with liability, (for short, “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant, insured/owner and 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 grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the insurer with liability for the reason that driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 11.6.2007 near Dadwan morh Tehsil and Distt., Chamba due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle bearing No.HP46-0433? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is approved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? OPP. (iii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the petitioner was traveling in the goods career vehicle as gratuitous passenger as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR. (v) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was being driven without fitness certificate and no road tax has been paid at the time of accident as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (vi) Relief.” 6. Parties have led evidence. OPR. (v) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was being driven without fitness certificate and no road tax has been paid at the time of accident as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (vi) Relief.” 6. 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.1,62,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and liability was fastened upon the insurer. Issue No. 1. 7. There is no dispute on this issue. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issues No. 3 to 5. 8. It was for the insurer to prove these issues, has not led any evidence. Thus, it has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 to 5 are upheld. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. The insurer has neither led any evidence to prove the said factum nor has proved that the owner-insured as committed any willful breach in terms of the mandate of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the Insurance Policy. Issue No. 2. 10. The award amount is meager, cannot be said to be excessive. 11. Having said so, no interference is required. The impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 12. 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. 13. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.