Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1148 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rukmu Deen

2016-06-24

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 14th February, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 137-MAC/2 of 2004, titled Rukmu Deen vs. Kishan Singh Kundlas & others, whereby a sum of Rs.1,47,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, the owner-insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The parties are in second round of litigation before this Court by the medium of this appeal. In the first round of litigation, the claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the claimants had questioned the said award by the medium of FAO(MVA) 475 of 2005, titled Rukmu Deen vs. Kishan Singh Kundlas & others, which was decided on 21st September, 2010, and it was held that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was remanded with the command to the Tribunal to decide whether the appellant sustained injuries in the said accident and if so to what amount of compensation he is entitled to and from whom. The relevant portion of the said order is recorded in the first para of the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in one of the claim petitions, the Tribunal has held that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The copy of the said award is at page 112 (Ext.R-3) of the record. The findings recorded by this Court are binding on the parties. In view of the earlier judgment made by this Court, this argument is not tenable and accordingly rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the claimant has not proved that he has sustained injuries in the said accident. This argument is also not correct for the following reasons. 6. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the evidence and made discussion in para 10 of the impugned award. It is apt to reproduce para-10 of the impugned award herein:- “10. This argument is also not correct for the following reasons. 6. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the evidence and made discussion in para 10 of the impugned award. It is apt to reproduce para-10 of the impugned award herein:- “10. therefore, this tribunal ought in reverence to the directions as contained in the judgment of Hon’ble High Court aforesaid determine the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant in consequence to the injuries and subsequent disability sustained by him. In proof of aforesaid the claimant himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and has deposed unequivocally, that, in the accident, in question, he had sustained multiple injuries in his stomach, foot, besides fracture in his right shoulder. After the accident, he was taken to Pawar Clinic, where he was medically examined and the MLC to this effect is mark-A (later exhibited as Ext.P1. Thereafter, he, was taken to Dehradun hospital, where, he, remained admitted for 11 days. In the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination to which PW1 was subjected to, for, shattering the version contained in his examination-in-chief qua his sustaining the injuries in the accident, he, has come out unscathed. PW2 Nadeem Khan, the purported eye witnesses of the occurrence, too, has supported PW1, by, deposing that a plank of the truck hit the claimant on account of which he fell down. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in connivance with the claimant, family members of Matloob Khan and the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner also tendered in evidence MLC issued by Pawar Clinic Ext.P1, disability certificate Ex.P2 and discharge summary Ext.P3 issued by Shri Mahant Indiresh Hospital, Dehradun which have remained unrebutted. A perusal of Exts. P1 and P3 shows that the claimant had sustained injuries including fracture of right clavical and blunt injury abdomen with haemo peritoneum. In the absence evidence to the contrary, it, is held that the petitioner had sustained multiple injuries aforesaid in the accident in question, as also, he had attained disability in consequences of the injuries to the extent detailed in disability certificate Ext.P2. This issue stands answered accordingly.” 7. Thus, it can be safely held that the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion. 8. The amount is meager, cannot be said to be excessive in any way. The findings returned by the Tribunal in para 14 are speaking, need no interference. This issue stands answered accordingly.” 7. Thus, it can be safely held that the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion. 8. The amount is meager, cannot be said to be excessive in any way. The findings returned by the Tribunal in para 14 are speaking, need no interference. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 10. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.