Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1856 (HP)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Sham Lal

2015-12-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 03.09.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 128S/2 of 2005/04, titled as Sh. Sham lal versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,27,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the appellants were saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive. 3. The claimant-injured has called in question the impugned award on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate. 4. The insurer and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 5. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 6. I have gone through the claim petition, record and the impugned award and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, cannot be said to be either excessive or inadequate, rather is just and appropriate. 7. It has been pleaded by the claimant-injured that he is an Ex-serviceman, was 45 years of age at the time of the accident and getting pension of Rs. 2,275/- per month. Further averred that after retirement, he was employed by Misao Security as a security guard and was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 6,500/- per month. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,49,350/- on the grounds taken in the memo of claim petition, was resisted by the respondents in the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 13.03.2008:- "1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HP-07-4476 by the respondent No. 4 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has suppressed the true and material facts from the Tribunal. If so, its effect? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action? OPP 6. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties? OPR 7. Whether the respondent No. 4 was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor. If so, its effect? OPR 5 8. Whether the respondent No. 4 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Swaraj Mazda as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR 5 9. Whether the vehicle was being run without any valid registration cum fitness certificate and route permit. If so, its effect? OPR 5 10. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR 5 11. Relief." 9. Parties have led evidence. The claimant-injured examined HC Yog Raj as PW1, Shri Laiq Ram as PW3, Dr. Lokinder Sharma as PW4 and has stepped into the witness box as PW2. The respondents have examined Sh. Joshinder Lal as RW1, Smt. Shakuntla Sharma as RW2, Dr. Sunder Chainta as RW3, HC Roshan Lal as RW4, Shri R.K. Dhiman as RW6 and the driver, namely Shri Sant Ram himself appeared in the witness box as RW5. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence and the pleadings, has rightly held that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver at the time of the accident and decided issues No. 1 and 7 in favour of the claimant-injured, needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 7 are upheld. 11. The findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 to 6, 8 and 9 are also upheld for the reason that there is no challenge to the said findings. 12. The challenge revolves around issue No. 2. The Tribunal has discussed issue No. 2 and 10, while holding that they are interlinked, right from para 21 to 30. 11. The findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 to 6, 8 and 9 are also upheld for the reason that there is no challenge to the said findings. 12. The challenge revolves around issue No. 2. The Tribunal has discussed issue No. 2 and 10, while holding that they are interlinked, right from para 21 to 30. It appears that the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion while keeping in view the statements of the doctors and the amount awarded cannot be said to be excessive or inadequate in any way, needs no interference. 13. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal as well as the cross-objections is dismissed. 14. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 15. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.