Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 254 (HP)

Bhim Singh v. Narpat Ram

2015-03-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 6th September, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby Claim Petition No.6 of 2004, titled Bhim Singh vs. Narpat Ram and others, came to be determined and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,87,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was awarded in favour of the Claimant, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimant Bhim Singh (appellant herein), on 10th May, 2003, was coming to Sainj from Shikari Mata Temple, in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.HP-33-1510. At about 5.00 p.m., when the said Van reached near Kandi curve, a private bus bearing registration No.HP-33-2410, being driven by its driver, namely, Girja Nand, (respondent No.2), rashly and negligently, hit the Maruti Van, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Primary Health Centre, Bagsaid and thereafter, was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where he remained admitted from 10th March, 2003 to 10th June, 2003, hence the Claim Petition. 3. The Claim Petition was resisted by the insurer, the owner and the driver, and the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the respondent No.2 was driving the bus bearing No.HP-33-2410 on 10.5.2003 at about 5 P.M. near Kandi in rash and negligent manner resulting in injuries to the petitioner Sh.Bhim Singh, who was traveling in maruti van bearing No.HP-33-1510, as alleged? OPP 2. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, as to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as well as mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the driver of maruti van bearing No.HP-33-1510 is guilty of contributory negligence as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective D/L at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and M.V. Act? OPR(3). 6. Relief.” 4. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimant and Issues Nos.3 to 5 against the respondents and allowed the claim petition. 5. OPR(3). 6. Relief.” 4. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimant and Issues Nos.3 to 5 against the respondents and allowed the claim petition. 5. The Insurer, the owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus the same has attained finality, so far it relates to them. Only the claimant has challenged the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 6. Thus, the only question needs to be answered in this appeal is – Whether the amount awarded is inadequate? 7. I have gone through the medical bills and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs No.30 and 31 of the impugned award and am of the considered view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is adequate. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- under the head ‘cost of medicines’, as also awarded compensation under other heads. 8. On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer argued that the expenses incurred by the claimant on medicines have been reimbursed to him by the Department concerned. Therefore, the claimant was asked to file his affidavit, which has been filed, wherein it has been averred that the claimant-injured had got medical reimbursement only for a sum of Rs.18,500/-. Thus, it was argued that the amount of compensation awarded under the head ‘cost of medicines’ is adequate. 9. As discussed hereinabove, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- under the head ‘cost of medicines, which, in my view, is quite reasonable and based upon the correct appreciation of evidence led by the claimant. The amount awarded under other heads is also just. 10. Having said so, the impugned award needs to be upheld and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, if not released so far.