Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1862 (HP)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daulat Ram

2015-12-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.11.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, H.P. in MAC case No. 30-S/2 of 2007, titled Shri. Daulat Ram Sharma versus Shri Shyam Singh Jaswal and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,83,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Owner, driver, insured and claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, 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. 4. The claimant had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. (i). Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HP-51-0579 and Santro Car No. HP-16-5580 by respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively, as alleged? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from which of the respondents? OPP. (iii) Whether the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant, as alleged? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the petition is not maintainable, in the present form, as alleged? OPR-4. (v) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-4. (vi) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven at the time of accident in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, it seffect?OPR-4. (vii) Relief. 6. Parties have led evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimant has proved while leading cogent evidence that the driver of Santro Car No. HP-16-5580 has driven the said vehicle rashly and negligently and decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. The said findings are not in dispute, are accordingly upheld. 8. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5 at the first instance. 9. Issue No.3. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus, has not led any evidence. The said findings are not in dispute, are accordingly upheld. 8. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5 at the first instance. 9. Issue No.3. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus, has not led any evidence. In view of the findings returned on issue No.1, this issue is to be decided accordingly. Viewed thus, findings returned on this issue are upheld. 10. Issue No.4. It was for respondent No. 4 to prove that how the claim petition is not maintainable. Keeping in view the facts of the claim petition, the findings came to be rightly recorded by the Tribunal, are upheld. 11. Issue No.5. It was for the insurer to prove this issue, has not led any evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 5 are upheld. 12. Issue No.6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove by leading cogent evidence that the owner has committed willful breach, has not led any evidence. While going through the impugned award, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the owner has not committed any willful breach. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. 13. Issue No.2. I have gone through the assessment made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in para 6. The amount awarded cannot be said to be excessive, in any way, rather it is meager. Unfortunately the claimant has not questioned the same, reluctantly, it is upheld. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability. 14. Having said so, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 15. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 16. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.