Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 635 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sharda Devi

2015-05-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 21st November, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in MAC Petition No. 31-P/2003, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.31,803/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants respondents No. 1 & 2 herein and against the driver, owner and insurer (for short, the ?impugned award?), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants, driver and owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Limited has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. 4. In order to determine the said issues, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case herein. Brief Facts: 5. The claimants, being victims of the vehicular accident, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.47,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver, namely, Vijay Kumar, while driving vehicle-Tempo bearing registration No. HP-37-8712, rashly and negligently, on 13.12.2002, at about 11.30 p.m., in Nagrota Bagwan Bazar, struck his vehicle against van bearing registration No. DL-2C-C4200 and caused damage to said property, i.e. the van. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: ?1. Whether the petitioner has suffered damages on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 resulting into the damages to the van of the petitioners? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the terms of the insurance policy were violated by the respondents No. 1, 2 and respondent 3 is not liable to pay the compensation? …OPR-3 4. …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the terms of the insurance policy were violated by the respondents No. 1, 2 and respondent 3 is not liable to pay the compensation? …OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured by the respondent No. 3 ? …OPP 5. Relief.? 7. The claimants have examined Lady Constable Raksha Devi (PW-1), Ashok Kumar (PW-3) and Narinder Kumar (PW-4). Claimant has also appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The owner and insurer have not led any evidence. However, the driver has appeared in the witness box as RW-1. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has held that driver, namely, Vijay Kumar, has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on 13.12.2002, at about 11.30 p.m., in Nagrota Bagwan Bazar and caused damage to van bearing registration No. DL-2C-C4200. 9. The said issue is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issues No. 3 & 4 10. It was for the insurer to prove issues No. 3 & 4. It has failed to lead any evidence. However, cover note Ext. R-X is placed on the record, which does disclose that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident. The insurer has failed to prove that the owner has committed any breach. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld. 11. The insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Thus, the plea raised by the insurer in this appeal is without any force. Issue No. 2. 12. The Tribunal has discussed the facts of the case, assessed the damage caused to the van and made discussion in paras 11 and 12 of the impugned award. 13. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the assessment and awarded the just and appropriate compensation to the claimants, which cannot be said to be excessive. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are upheld. 14. Having said so, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 15. 13. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the assessment and awarded the just and appropriate compensation to the claimants, which cannot be said to be excessive. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are upheld. 14. Having said so, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 15. 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. 16. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.