Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1729 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jai Chand

2015-11-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of one vehicular accident, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in both these appeals is to the judgments and awards, dated 02.06.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H. P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Cases No. 82 and 83 of 2006, titled as Sh. Jai Chand and others versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 2,78,800/-, respectively, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the appellant insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned awards"). 3. Claimants filed two claim petitions, i.e. M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2006 for grant of compensation on account of death of Chander Pal, who was the son of claimants No. 1 & 2 and father of claimant No. 3 and M.A.C. Case No. 83 of 2006 on account of death of Nisha, who was the daughter-in-law of claimants No. 1 & 2 and mother of claimant No. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant(s)insurer argued that M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2006 was not maintainable because the claimants have sought compensation in lieu of death of Chander Pal, who was the owner of the offending vehicle. Further stated that M.A.C. Case No. 83 of 2006 was also not maintainable for the reason that the claimants have sought compensation in lieu of death of Nisha, who was the wife of the ownerinsured, namely Chander Pal. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) insurer, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons: FAO No. 438 of 2008 6. In M.A.C. Case No. 83 of 2006, which is subject matter of FAO No. 438 of 2008, the claimants have sought compensation in lieu of death of Nisha, daughter-in-law of claimants No. 1 & 2 and mother of claimant No. 3, who was the wife of the owner-insured, Chander Pal. 7. Deceased Nisha, though was the wife of the owner-insured Chander Pal, was a third party and not a party to the insurance contract. The claimants, i.e. the parents-in-law and the minor son are also the third parties. 7. Deceased Nisha, though was the wife of the owner-insured Chander Pal, was a third party and not a party to the insurance contract. The claimants, i.e. the parents-in-law and the minor son are also the third parties. Thus, the claim petition, i.e. M.A.C. Case No. 83 of 2006 was maintainable as they have every right to claim compensation by invoking the remedy as provided in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") and the Tribunal has discussed all these issues in the impugned award. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) insurer was asked to show how the claim petition was not maintainable? He was not able to justify his argument. Virtually, he made a strange argument, which should not be made by a counsel, who is dealing with the cases of the insurance companies right from the entry in the profession. 9. Granting of compensation in terms of the MV Act is a social Legislation and its purpose is to achieve the object and not to defeat the same. 10. Admittedly, deceased-Nisha is not a party to the insurance contract, was a third party. In terms of the insurance contract, Ext. RW1/A, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was three. Thus, the risk of deceased-Nisha was covered. Having said so, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) insurer is not tenable. 11. It is apt to record herein that the Tribunal has rightly made discussions while deciding M.A.C. Case No. 83 of 2006 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,78,800/- with interest @ 7.5, which cannot be said to be excessive in any way. 12. Having said so, the impugned award made in M.A.C. Case No. 83 of 2006 is upheld and FAO No. 438 of 2008 is dismissed. FAO No. 439 of 2008 13. M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2006, subject matter of FAO No. 439 of 2008, on the face of it, was not maintainable, but the claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the year 2006 and are fighting legal battle for the last about ten years and in case no relief is granted to them, it will defeat the very purpose and object of granting of compensation. 14. In terms of the insurance contract, risk of owner is also covered up to Rs. 14. In terms of the insurance contract, risk of owner is also covered up to Rs. 2,00,000/- and in case the claimants approach the competent forum, they will get Rs. 2,00,000/-. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants stated at the Bar that the said factum was also admitted by the representative of the appellant insurer before the Lok Adalat. Thus, I deem it proper to award Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2006, which is the liability of the appellant(s) insurer. 15. Accordingly, the amount awarded in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2006 is reduced and it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. It is made clear that this judgment is made in the given facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent. 16. Having said so, the impugned award in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2006 is modified and the appeal, i.e. FAO No. 439 of 2008, is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove. 17. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in both the appeals in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the respective impugned awards after proper identification. Excess amount, if any, in FAO No. 439 of 2008 be released in favour of the appellant insurer through payee's account cheque. 18. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.