Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1156 (HP)

Rama Nand v. Santosh

2016-06-24

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. FAO No. 116 of 2011 is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.11.2010, made in MACT No. 3-S/2 of 2007 titled Smt. Santosh and others versus Rama Nand whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/- with 7.5% interest came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and FAO No. 121 of 2011 is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.11.2010, made in MACT No. 4-S/2 of 2007, titled Smt. Savita and others versus Rama Nand, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,96,000/- with 7.5% interest, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Shimla, H.P., and insured, driver-cum-owner came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned awards for short”. 2. Both these appeals are outcome of the same accident; hence I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The claimants have not questioned the impugned awards, on any count. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants, driver-cum-owner/insured had not driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and the accident occurred due to some mechanical defect in the vehicle. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The learned Tribunal has rightly made the impugned awards and saddled the appellants, driver-cum-owner/insured with the liability, for the following reasons. 7. The claimants have specifically averred that Rama Nand appellant, driver-cum- owner/insured has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and caused the accident. The claimants have also led evidence and all the witnesses have deposed before the Tribunal that the driver has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident and FIR No. 1/07 dated 1.1.2007 was lodged in Police Station Theog, which culminated into final report under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Thus, there is sufficient proof on the file which does disclose that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver. 8. The appellant, driver-cum-owner/insured has filed the reply. In preliminary objections, he has admitted the cause of death of the deceased but stated that he had lost control over the vehicle for the reasons beyond his control and deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, the cause of death of the deceased is admitted. 8. The appellant, driver-cum-owner/insured has filed the reply. In preliminary objections, he has admitted the cause of death of the deceased but stated that he had lost control over the vehicle for the reasons beyond his control and deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, the cause of death of the deceased is admitted. While filing reply, the owner-cum-driver has not specifically denied the averments contained in the claim petition and has only written, “not denied”, “admitted” and “not denied”. Thus, there is no specific reply. In terms of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short “the CPC”, it can be safely held that the averments contained in the claim petition are admitted. 9. Having said so, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. The adequacy of the compensation is not in dispute. Accordingly, it is upheld. 11. Admittedly, the vehicle was not insured. Thus, the owner has to satisfy the impugned awards. 12. Viewed thus, the impugned awards are upheld and the appeals are dismissed. 13. The amount stands already deposited. The Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees cheque account, or by depositing the same in their accounts. 14. Both the appeals stand disposed of, alongwith pending applications if any, as indicated hereinabove. 15. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.