Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1859 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lachman Singh

2015-12-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 11th November, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 28-NL/2 of 2005, titled Sh. Lachman Singh & another versus Parminder Kumar Bansal & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,99,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and cost quantified at Rs. 1,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 & 2 herein and the insurer-appellant herein came to be saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 4. The claimants being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 5. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident and consequent death of Kulwinder Singh was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Tipper bearing No. HR-37A-1708 by respondent No. 2 Ranjeet Singh on 1.7.205 at about 3 PM at Village Mallpur as alleged. If so, its effect ? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? ….OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party? …OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? ….OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 Ranjeet Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident to drive the offending vehicle, if so, its effect? ….OPR-3 6. Relief.” 7. The claimants have examined Sh. Vashir Mohammad (PW-1) and Shri Krishan Gopal (PW-3) and Shri Gurmel Singh (PW-4). One of the claimants, i.e. Lachman Singh also appeared in the witness box as PW-2. ….OPR-3 6. Relief.” 7. The claimants have examined Sh. Vashir Mohammad (PW-1) and Shri Krishan Gopal (PW-3) and Shri Gurmel Singh (PW-4). One of the claimants, i.e. Lachman Singh also appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The respondents have examined Shri Mahinder Lal Sharma (RW- 1), Shri R.S. Sharma (RW-2) and Shri Sita Ram (RW-4). Owner Parminder Singh also appeared in the witness box as RW-3. 8. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver, namely, Parinder Singh has driven the offending vehicle, i.e. Tipper bearing registration No. HR-37A-1708, rashly and negligently, on 01.07.2005, at about 3.00 p.m., at Village Mallpur on Nalagarh-Pinjore road, in which deceased Kulwinder Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Issue No. 1. 9. The claimants have proved issue No. 1. The findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are not in dispute. Accordingly, the same are upheld. 10. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 5. Issue No. 3. 11. It was for the respondents to prove that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary party, have not led any evidence. Even otherwise, the claimants are the parents of the deceased and are the legal representatives of the deceased, thus are within their rights to maintain the same. 12. The Act has gone a sea change and sub section (6) to Section 158 and sub section (4) to Section 166 of the Act have been added, whereby the Claims Tribunal can treat report of accident forwarded to it under Section 158 (6) of the Act as an application for compensation. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to plead that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 13. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.3 and accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 4. 14. It was for the respondents to prove this issue, have not led any evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5. 15. Respondent No. 3-insurer has examined Shri R.S. Sharma as RW-2. The Tribunal has discussed issue No. 5 in para-16 of the impugned award. Issue No. 4. 14. It was for the respondents to prove this issue, have not led any evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5. 15. Respondent No. 3-insurer has examined Shri R.S. Sharma as RW-2. The Tribunal has discussed issue No. 5 in para-16 of the impugned award. It is apt to record the aforesaid para herein:- “It has been submitted that the respondent No. 2 Ranjeet Singh was not holding valid driving licence and the Tipper was being plied in rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 2. Thereby, in case any compensation is ordered to be paid that would have to be paid by the respondent No. 1 and 2 and not by the respondent No. 3. In this respect, driving licence of the respondent No. 2 has been produced on the file as Ex. R.1. The perusal of the driving licene goes to show that it was issued in the name of Ranjit Singh, the respondent No. 2 firstly on 31.5.1984 and thereafter from time to time it had been renewed. The last date on its renewal was 30.10.2006. The respondent No. 3 to establish that it was not issued by Licensing Authority which is alleged to have been examined one Sita Ram as R3-W-1 who has deposed that he has brought the record qua the licence No. 123/ODL/1990 stating that it was never issued by R.L.A. Alwar. It has also been stated that there is no other Licensing Authority at Alwar issuing licence. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he had brought the record w.e.f. 28.6.1984 to 3.7.1984. The record produced by the witness w.e.f. 28.6.1984 to 3.7.1984 and no licence bearing No. 123/ODL/1990 was issued by R.L.A. Alwar during this period. However, he has not deposed qua 31.5.1984 on which date the licence in question is endorsed to have been issued. The perusal of Ex R-1 would go to show that for the first time the licence in the name of respondent No. 2 was issued on 31.5.1984. No record having been brought qua this fact by the respondent No. 3 that the licence bearing date of 31.5.1984 was never issued. The only conclusion which could be drawn is that a valid driving licence was issued in the name of the respondent No. 2 on 31.5.1984 by the Licensing Authority, Alwar. No record having been brought qua this fact by the respondent No. 3 that the licence bearing date of 31.5.1984 was never issued. The only conclusion which could be drawn is that a valid driving licence was issued in the name of the respondent No. 2 on 31.5.1984 by the Licensing Authority, Alwar. Thereby, it can safely be held that the respondent No. 2 was holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident which had been renewed from time to time. There is no other evidence from the side of the respondents that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thereby to establish the averments made by the respondent No. 3, no evidence having been led. This issue is decided by holding that the respondent No. 2 at the time of accident was holding a valid driving licence and no terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated.” 16. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion, supra. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 are upheld. Issue No. 2 17. The amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive while keeping in view the age of the deceased and the age of the parents of the deceased. Rather, meager amount has been awarded in favour of the claimants/parents of the deceased, who have lost their budding son, who was the only source of their income, have not questioned the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 18. Viewed thus, no interference is required. The impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 19. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 20. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.