Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 575 (HP)

Pawan Kumar v. Prabahu Lal

2015-05-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-owner has questioned the award, dated 1st March, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 36 of 2004, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 herein and against the owner, appellant herein, (for short, the “impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The short controversy involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the owner-appellant to satisfy the impugned award. Brief Facts: 3. The claimants, being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver, namely, Sunni Lal, had driven vehicle-Commander Jeep bearing registration No. HP-06-1643, rashly and negligently, on 02.12.2002, at about 9.30 a.m., near Bahli about 11 kilometer towards Teklach, caused the accident, in which one Birbal sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 4. The claimants, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 5. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the registered owner with liability. 6. The registered owner has questioned the impugned award that he has sold the vehicle to Shishila Devi, respondent No. 3 in the claim petition. 7. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Sh. Birbal had died on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. HP-06-1643? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to? ..OPP 3. Relief.” 9. The parties led evidence. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Sh. Birbal had died on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No. HP-06-1643? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to? ..OPP 3. Relief.” 9. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that registered owner Pawan Kumar has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was sold to Shishila Devi or the offending vehicle was registered in the name of said Shishila Devi. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant was asked whether there was any agreement or power of attorney indicating that the offending vehicle was sold to Shishila Devi or it was registered in her name? 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that as per affidavit Ext. RW-4/A, the offending vehicle was sold by Pawan Kumar to Shishila Devi and said Shishila Devi has made an application Ext. RW-2/A before the Deputy Commissioner for grant of aid. 13. The Tribunal has discussed the said issue in para-9 of the impugned award. I have gone through the impugned award and the entire record and am of the considered view that the registered owner has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue are upheld. 14. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, produced a copy of award dated 7th May, 2005 passed in MAC Case No. 68 of 2005, titled as Akalzin & others versus Sh. Pawan Kumar & another, which was outcome of the same accident, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,55,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and owner Pawan Kumar was fastened with liability. The said award stands satisfied and has not been questioned, has attained finality. 15. Having said so, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 17. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.