Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 725 (HP)

Rattan Singh v. Dodi Devi

2015-06-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are the outcome of common award, dated 28th February, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petitions No.16 of 1999, titled Dodi Devi vs. Govind Ram and others, filed by the mother of deceased Rattan Lal, and Claim Petition No.2 of 1999, titled Vijay Kumar and another vs. Deceased Govind Ram through LRs and others, filed by the minor son and daughter of deceased Rattan Lal, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,31,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5%, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants, and the owner-appellant was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the owner/insured has challenged impugned award by the medium of the instant appeals. 3. The short question involved in these appeals is – Whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the owner/insured to satisfy the impugned award, by exonerating the insurer from the liability. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 4. The Claimants have specifically averred in the Claim Petitions that on 8th December, 1998, the deceased Rattan Lal was traveling in a tractor bearing No.HP-33-3431, which was owned by Govind Ram. The Tractor, attached with trolley, met with an accident and Rattan Lal sustained injuries and succumbed to the same, constraining the claimants to file the Claim Petitions claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs. Both the Claim Petitions were consolidated and tried together by the Tribunal. 5. The owner, the driver and the insurer resisted the Claim Petitions by filing replies. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.16 of 1999: “1.Whether deceased Rattan Lal son of the petitioner died in accident which took place on 8-12-1998 at 10.00 P.M. near Chakkar on Mandi-Nerchowki road was riding in tractor bearing No.HP-33-3431 belonging to respondent No.1 and driven by rash and negligent manner? OPA 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and to what extent and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was driven by unauthorized person without any effective and valid licence? OPR-3 4. Relief.” 7. OPA 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and to what extent and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was driven by unauthorized person without any effective and valid licence? OPR-3 4. Relief.” 7. In Claim Petition No.2 of 1999, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal: “1.Whether deceased Rattan Lal father of the petitioners died in accident which took place on 8-12-1998 at 10 P.M. near Chakkar on Mandi-Nerchowki road was riding in tractor bearing No.HP-33-3431 belonging to respondent No.1 and driven by rash and negligent manner? OPA 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and to what extent and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was driven by unauthorized person without any effective and valid licence? OPR-3 4. Relief.” 8. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the entire evidence, held that the Claimants have proved issues No.1 and 2. It was also held that the insurer has failed to prove issue No.3. However, while determining as to who is to be saddled with the liability, the Tribunal saddled the insured with the liability. 9. The findings recorded under issue No.1 are not in dispute, therefore, the same are accordingly upheld. 10. Before issue No.2 is taken up, I deem it proper to deal with issue No.3. The onus to prove this issue was on the insurer, which the insurer has not discharged. Admittedly, the driver of the offending tractor was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the insurer. 11. Coming to issue No.2, the adequacy of compensation is not in dispute. However, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are under challenge to the extent that the owner/insured has been wrongly saddled with the liability. During the course of hearing, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/owner that the insurance policy Ext.RW-2/A was comprehensive one and therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the insurance policy Ext.RW-2/A and has wrongly exonerated the insurer. 12. A perusal of the insurance policy Ext.RW-2/A does disclose that the Tractor was insured with trolley and additional premium was paid. 12. A perusal of the insurance policy Ext.RW-2/A does disclose that the Tractor was insured with trolley and additional premium was paid. It is admitted case that the tractor with trolley was being used for agricultural purpose. It has been admitted by the driver of the offending tractor that the deceased was performing the job of a labourer. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the insurer, was not in a position to defend the impugned award on this count. 13. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in discharging the insurer and directing the owner to satisfy the impugned award. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award. The insurer is directed to deposit the award amount within 8 weeks from today in the Registry of this Court and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. 14. The amount, if any, deposited by the insured/appellant be released in his favour through payees’ account cheque. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of the connected appeal. 15. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.