Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 258 (HP)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Avtar Singh

2015-03-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 16th June, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby Claim Petition No.63-MAC/2 of 2005, titled Avtar Singh v. Jaswinder Pal Singh and another, came to be determined and compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,050/-, 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 Avtar Singh (respondent No.1 herein), filed the Claim Petition on the ground that on 25th May, 2005, while he was traveling in Maruti Car No.HP-18-0111, which was being driven by Jaswinder Pal Singh (respondent No.2 herein) in a rash and negligent manner, the said vehicle met with an accident, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Therefore, the Claimant filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 3. The Tribunal, vide the impugned award, allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 49,050/- in favour of the Claimant. 4. The Claimant-injured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 5. The insurer has challenged the impugned award, by the medium of the present appeal, on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. 6. It is shocking that the Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on such a trivial ground, particularly, when the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager. 7. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.5, in paragraph No.19 of the impugned award, which findings are self speaking and need no interference. 8. Having said so, the impugned award deserves 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.