Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 682 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Dinesh Kumar

2015-06-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of a traffic accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Jitender Kumar, while driving bus, bearing registration No. HP-20-5665, rashly and negligently, on 05.05.2005, at about 10.30 A.M. at Main Bus Stand, Mandi, in which Shri Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Raj Kumari sustained injuries. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Being victims of the said vehicular accident, injured-Dinesh Kumar filed Claim Petition No. 104 of 2005, titled as Sh. Dinesh Kumar versus Shri Trilochan Singh and others, and injured-Raj Kumari filed Claim Petition No. 103 of 2005, titled as Smt. Raj Kumari versus Shri Trilochan Singh and others, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal"), after scanning the evidence, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 1,09,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants-injured respectively, vide separate awards, dated 15.01.2008, (for short "the impugned awards"). 3. It is travesty of justice that the claimants-injured are still deprived of the compensation for the last ten years, which is against the purpose of granting compensation. 4. Virtually the insurance company has conducted this case in a way which is against the concept of granting of compensation, is an eye opener for the said insurance company. 5. Only a meager amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant-injured-Dinesh Kumar in Claim Petition No. 104 of 2005, should not have been questioned by such a reputed insurance company. In terms of the mandate of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act"), Rs. 25,000/- has to be awarded under 'No Fault Liability'. I wonder why the insurance company has filed appeal in this case. 6. However, I have gone through the record. The impugned award in FAO No. 272 of 2008 is just and proper, needs no interference. 7. In Claim Petition No. 103 of 2005, claimant-injured-Raj Kumari has suffered injuries, which have shattered her physical frame. Not only this, the claimant-injured-Raj Kumari was carrying three-four months pregnancy and suffered miscarriage due to the accident. 8. The impugned award in FAO No. 272 of 2008 is just and proper, needs no interference. 7. In Claim Petition No. 103 of 2005, claimant-injured-Raj Kumari has suffered injuries, which have shattered her physical frame. Not only this, the claimant-injured-Raj Kumari was carrying three-four months pregnancy and suffered miscarriage due to the accident. 8. The insurer has questioned the impugned awards on the ground that the original driver of the offending vehicle was not arrayed as party-respondent in the array of respondents, which has been thrashed out by the Tribunal, needs no interference. 9. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,09,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant-injured-Raj Kumari, is not just in the given circumstances of the case. But, claimant-injured-Raj Kumari has not questioned the same, is accordingly upheld. 10. Viewed thus, both the appeal are dismissed and the impugned awards are upheld. 11. At this stage, Mr. G.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant(s), stated at the Bar that the insurer has deposited the entire awarded amount in FAO No. 276 of 2009 before the Tribunal. His statement is taken on record. 12. The Tribunal is directed to release the awarded amount to claimant-injured-Raj Kumari strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 13. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in FAO No. 272 of 2008 in favour of claimant-injured-Dinesh Kumar strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. Registry is further directed to release the statutory amount to the appellant in FAO No.276 of 2009 through cross cheque. 14. Both the appeals are disposed of, as indicated hereinabove. 15. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.