Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 729 (HP)

Gumti Devi v. Pushpa Devi

2015-06-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 19.11.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT No. 74-S/2 of 2005/04, titled as Pushpa Devi and others versus Gumti Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the petition till deposition of the amount came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the driver and owner-insured (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The insurer, claimants and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-owner has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling her with liability. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is - whether the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, thus, the owner-insured has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy read with the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act")? 5. The claimants have specifically averred in para 24 of the claim petition that the driver of the offending vehicle had given lift to the deceased. 6. The owner-insured in reply to para 24 has stated that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of a labourer, whereas the driver in reply to the said para has stated that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. 7. It is worthwhile to record herein that the claimants have nowhere averred that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods or had hired the same. 8. Thus, it can be safely said that the owner-insured has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner-insured with liability. 10. Viewed thus, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 11. 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner-insured with liability. 10. Viewed thus, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 stated at the Bar that the claimants have already received Rs.50,000/- under 'No Fault Liability'. The insurer has satisfied the interim award in view of the principle of 'No Fault Liability'. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insured also stated at the Bar that the owner-insured has already deposited Rs.25,000/- before the Registry at the time of filing of the appeal. The owner-insured is directed to deposit the remaining awarded amount (i.e. the total awarded amount with interest - Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) before the Registry within eight weeks. 13. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 14. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.