Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1162 (HP)

Rachna Devi v. Prem Singh

2016-06-24

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of the motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely, Prem Singh, while driving vehicle-truck bearing registration No. HR-37-8680, rashly and negligently, at about 8.30 a.m., near Government College, Una and hit motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-20B-9808, which was being driven by Satish Kumar and Moti Ram was pillion rider. Both of them, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Smt. Rachna Devi and others, being the legal representatives of Satish Kumar and victims of the motor vehicular accident, had filed M.A.C. Petition No. 6 of 2008; RBT No. 14/2008/2010 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh, for short ‘the Tribunal’ for grant of compensation to the tune of 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The insurer, driver and owner-insured of the offending truck have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Sh. Satish Kumar had died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-37-8680 by respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. If so, with what effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle No. HP-37- 8680 was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and Act, If so, with what effect? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 5. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist, namely, Satish Kumar, for short ‘the impugned award-I’. 6. Smt. Mahindera Devi and others, being the legal representatives of deceased Moti Ram, had filed M.A.C. Petition No. 11 of 2009 before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,60,000/-, on the ground that deceased Moti Ram was pillion rider, sustained injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries. 7. 6. Smt. Mahindera Devi and others, being the legal representatives of deceased Moti Ram, had filed M.A.C. Petition No. 11 of 2009 before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,60,000/-, on the ground that deceased Moti Ram was pillion rider, sustained injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries. 7. The respondents, i.e. the insurer, driver and owner-insured of the offending truck have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether Sh. Moti Ram had died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-37-8680 by respondent No. 1? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom are the petitioners entitled to? …OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable against respondents? …..OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. If so with what effect? …OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 had been plying his vehicle without valid registration certificate-cum-fitness certificate and route permit. If so with what effect? ….OPR-3 6. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis joinder and non joinder? …OPR-3 7. Relief.” 9. After scanning the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was outcome of contributory rashness and negligence of truck driver, namely, Prem Singh and motorcyclist, namely, Satish Kumar and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the claimants and against the owners-insured, drivers and insurers of both the vehicles, but since the claimants had not claimed compensation from the owner-insured, motorcyclist and insurer of the motorcycle, held the owner-insured, driver and insurer of the offending truck liable to pay half of the amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and costs to the tune Rs. 3,000/- and directed the insurer of the offending truck to satisfy the award, for short ‘impugned award-II’. 10. Both the awards are conflicting. 11. The owner-insured, driver and insurer of the offending truck have not questioned the impugned award-II. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 11 of 2009, subject matter of FAO No. 489 of 2010, have attained finality, reluctantly, are to be upheld. 10. Both the awards are conflicting. 11. The owner-insured, driver and insurer of the offending truck have not questioned the impugned award-II. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 11 of 2009, subject matter of FAO No. 489 of 2010, have attained finality, reluctantly, are to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award-II is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 12. Now, coming to FAO No. 434 of 2010, subject matter of MAC. Petition No. 6 of 2008, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the claim petition was not maintainable for the reason that the Tribunal has held that Satish Kumar was negligent and accident was not outcome of contributory negligence. 13. Having said so, the impugned award-I is also upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 14. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in FAO No. 489 of 2010, in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in impugned award-II, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 15. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal’s file.