Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1541 (HP)

United India Insurance Company v. Leelan Devi

2015-10-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 5th March, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.06 of 2007, titled Leelan Devi vs. Vinod Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,09,434/-, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). 2. Facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 2nd April, 2003, Claimant Leelan Devi, alongwith other persons, was traveling in a Jeep bearing No.HP-22-6433, which was hired by them from Sujanpur to Jawalamukhi and back. When the said Jeep was coming from Jawalamukhi and reached at Khirki, the Jeep, being driven by original respondent No.2, namely, Vinay Kumar, rashly and negligently, met with an accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Primary Health Center, Sujanpur, fromwhere she was referred to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur and thereafter to PGI, Chandigarh. FIR in regard to the accident bearing No.24/2003, dated 2nd April, 2003, was registered at Police Station, Sujanpur, under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the claimant-injured filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The Claim Petition was resisted by the respondents by filing replies. 4. The Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: “1. Whether petitioner Leela Devi has suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving Jeep No.HP-22-6433? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and as such, the petition is not maintainable? OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and if so, its effect? OPR-3. 5. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 5. OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and if so, its effect? OPR-3. 5. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 5. In order to prove her case, the claimant-injured examined PW-1 Jai Chand, PW-2 Dr. Desh Raj Sharma, PW-3 Leelan Devi (claimant herself), PW-4 Rajesh Kumar and PW-5 Dr. Dharamveer. On the other hand, the respondents have examined two witnesses, namely, RW-1 Ranjit Singh and RW- 2 Vinay Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle). 6. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the insurer with the liability since the claimant-injured was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the insurer has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. 8. On a bare perusal of the registration certification and the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the offending vehicle was a Light Motor Vehicle, whose unladen weight was 1610 kgs. In terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicles Act, the offending vehicle falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle. As per the registration certificate, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was ‘1+2’ i.e. one driver and two passengers. The insurance policy, on the basis of which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance, also covers the risk of three persons i.e. one driver and two passengers. 9. Admittedly, the claimant had hired the offending vehicle and the insurer has not led any evidence to the contrary to prove that the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the impugned award and has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the instant appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant forthwith, after proper identification.