Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 812 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shayama Verma

2015-07-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2, despite service. Hence, he is set exparte. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 01.09.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 24N/2 of 2003, titled as Shayama Verma versus Kishan Chand and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 3. The owner-insured, driver and claimant-injured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. Only the appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability. 5. It pains me to record herein that only a meager compensation amounting to Rs.40,000/ has been awarded in favour of the claimant injured. Even liability of the insurer under 'No Fault Liability' is Rs. 25,000/and for this petty amount, the claimant-injured has been deprived of his rights right from the year 2001 till today, is an eyeopener for the appellant insurer. 6. However, I have gone through the impugned award and the record. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant insurer with liability for the following reasons: 7. The Tribunal has framed the following issues on 19.05.2006: "1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash and negligently driving of bus No. HP073907 on 762001 at bus stand Shimla being driven by respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending bus was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether the offending bus was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR3 5. Relief." 8. Before I determine issues No. 1 and 2, I deem it proper to decide issues No. 3 and 4. Issues No. 3 and 4: 9. OPR 4. Whether the offending bus was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR3 5. Relief." 8. Before I determine issues No. 1 and 2, I deem it proper to decide issues No. 3 and 4. Issues No. 3 and 4: 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has held that the appellant-insurer has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has committed any willful breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy read with the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act"). 10. The appellant insurer has not led any evidence, thus has failed to discharge the onus. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 3 and 4 in favour of the owner insured and the driver and against the appellant insurer, are, accordingly upheld. Issues No. 1 and 2: 11. These issues are not in dispute. However, I have gone through the record. The claimant-injured has proved that the offending vehicle, i.e. bus, bearing registration No. HP073907 was being driven rashly and negligently on 7.6.2001, at about 10.50 A.M., at local bus stand, Shimla, by its driver, who caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 12. An amount of Rs. 40,000/awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant injured, though, is a meager amount, but the claimant injured has not questioned the same. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are also upheld. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, 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. 14. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 15. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.