Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1920 (HP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamna Devi

2015-12-18

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 5.8.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Solan, District Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 34-NL/2 of 2005, titled Smt. Jamna Devi and others versus Inderjeet Singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.14,13,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with costs of Rs.5,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants, owner and driver 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 three grounds that: (i) The accident was outcome of contributory negligence of the driver of scooter No. CH01-8745 and Alto Car No. HP-12-B-1310; (ii) An amount of Rs.75,000/- under the head “medical expenses” stands reimbursed to the claimants by the department as the deceased was a government employee, serving in the police department; and (iii) That interest @12% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 4. I have gone through the impugned award and perused the record. 5. It is specifically pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, namely, Naresh Kumar. The claimants have led evidence and there are also documents on the file which prima facie do disclose that Naresh Kumar has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. The insurer, owner and driver have not led any evidence to dislodge the same. Even the owner, driver and insurer have not questioned the finding returned on issue No.1. The insurer has also not taken this ground that Naresh Kumar was not driving the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No.3. 6. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issue No.3 at the first instance. The insurer has not led any evidence that the driver of the offending Car was not having a valid and effective driving licence. It has not been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. I have gone through the driving licence, which do disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Issue No.2. It has not been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. I have gone through the driving licence, which do disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Issue No.2. 7. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding Rs.75,000/- under the head “medical expenses” which deserves to be deducted and is deducted accordingly. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest @12% per annum. The interest @7.5% is awarded accordingly from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 8. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.14,13,000/- minus Rs.75,000/-= Rs.13,38,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. 9. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, if not already deposited, in this Registry within six weeks from today. The Registry, on deposit of the amount, is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, and excess amount, if any, be released to the insurer, through payees cheque account. 10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 11. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.