Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 574 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Anu Devi

2015-05-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 31.12.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 56 of 2005, titled as Smt. Anu Devi and others versus Sh. Ganesh Singh Bargali, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,40,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 herein and against the appellant-insurer (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The owner-insured and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with liability as the owner-insured has committed a willful breach, thus, it was not liable to satisfy the award and the amount awarded is excessive. 4. Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, frankly conceded that so many persons died in the same accident and a batch of claim petitions were filed in Uttrakhand and the insurer was saddled with liability, were questioned before the Apex Court by the medium of the SLPs by the insurer, came to be dismissed and the said findings recorded by the Tribunal in Uttrakhand have attained finality. 5. I deem it proper to record herein that the appellant-insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have committed any willful breach, which would have been a ground for the appellant-insurer to seek exoneration. Only on this count, the appeal merits to be dismissed. The Apex Court has also upheld the award whereby the insurer came to be saddled with liability, thus, the insurer has to satisfy the award in this case also. 6. The second ground of attack is the adequacy of compensation. It is worthwhile to record herein that compensation to the tune of Rs. The Apex Court has also upheld the award whereby the insurer came to be saddled with liability, thus, the insurer has to satisfy the award in this case also. 6. The second ground of attack is the adequacy of compensation. It is worthwhile to record herein that compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,40,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants, who are five in number, claimant No. 1 has lost her husband, which has affected her matrimonial home; claimants No. 2 & 3 are the minor sons, who have been deprived of the love and affection of their father and claimants No. 4 & 5 have lost their son, who was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. The parents have been deprived of their source of help in their old age. Thus, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is excessive in any way. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 8. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 9. The appeal is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith all pending applications. 10. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.