Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 987 (HP)

Rajinder Kumar v. Watan Singh

2015-07-31

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The owner-insured has called in question the judgment and award, dated 01.08.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT Petition No. 33-P/11/2005, titled as Shri Watan Singh versus Shri Rajinder Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,48,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer was saddled with liability with right of recovery (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimant-injured, the driver and the insurer 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-insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that sufficient opportunities were not granted to him to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and he has not committed any willful breach. 4. I have gone through the impugned award and the minutes of the file. 5. The appellant-owner-insured has chosen to remain in deep slumber and now, how can it lie in the mouth of the owner-insured, who has committed a willful breach, that he has not been granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in support of his defence. He has contested the claim petition before the Tribunal for three years and has dragged the claimant-injured into the lis, which is on the dockets of this Court for the last seven years. The claim has been deprived of his legitimate rights because of the appellant-owner-insured, is against the concept of granting of compensation and is to defeat the aim and object of the Legislation. 6. Virtually, the appellant-owner-insured has defeated the very purpose of granting compensation, is liable to be saddled with costs, is accordingly saddled with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the claimant-injured. 7. Having said so, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 8. At this stage, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer, stated at the Bar that the awarded amount has already been released in favour of the claimant-injured. His statement is taken on record. 9. 7. Having said so, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 8. At this stage, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer, stated at the Bar that the awarded amount has already been released in favour of the claimant-injured. His statement is taken on record. 9. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant-owner-insured in favour of the claimant-injured through payees' account cheque. 10. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.