Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 255 (HP)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Yangzum

2015-03-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. By the medium of the present appeal, the insurer (original respondent No.3) has challenged the award, dated 23rd May, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P. (for short, the Tribunal), whereby Claim Petition No.30 of 2006, titled Yangzum and another vs. Praveen Acharya and others, came to be determined and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, was awarded in favour of the Claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 8th March, 2006, the deceased Kama (son of the Claimants) was walking on the left side of the road, at about 9.45 A.M. In the meanwhile, the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No.HP-02K-0162, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came from Manali side, hit the deceased Kama as a result of which he got crushed under the front wheel of the said bus and died on the spot. Thus, the claimants, being the parents of deceased Kama, who was seven years of age at the time of accident, filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lacs, as per the breakups given in 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 minor master Kama son of petitioners died in the accident of vehicle No.HP-02K-0162 due to rash and negligent driving of its driver respondent No.2? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is held in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being plied without valid documents. If so, to what effect? OPR-3. 4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 as alleged? OPR-3. 5. Relief.” 4. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and Issues Nos.3 and 4 against the respondents and allowed the claim petition. 5. The claimants, 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. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and Issues Nos.3 and 4 against the respondents and allowed the claim petition. 5. The claimants, 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 insurer has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the owner of the offending bus had committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the insurer with the liability. 6. A perusal of the impugned award and the evidence led by the parties shows that the claimants have proved on record that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. The insurer-appellant has not been able to prove, by leading evidence, that the insured had committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. I may also place on record that it is beaten law of the land that in terms of the mandate of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rs. 50,000/- are to be awarded in favour of the claimants on account of no fault liability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- is inclusive of the amount awarded on account of no fault liability. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meager and therefore, the insurer should not have filed the appeal. 8. 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 claimants, if not released so far, strictly as per the conditions contained in the impugned award.