Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 127 (HP)

New India Assurance Company v. Pratap Singh

2016-02-26

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated 1st June, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 32N/ 2 of 2007, titled as Shri Pratap Singh and others versus Narayan Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 5,47,000/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposition of the amount came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the respondents (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, driver and owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimants have sought compensation to the tune of 20,00,000/, by the medium of the claim petition, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 5. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 24th June, 2008: “1. Whether the deceased Geeta Devi had died in an accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. HP642198 by its driver as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR1 4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR1 5. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR2 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR2 7. Relief.” 7. Parties have led evidence. Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that on 11th February, 2007, at about 8.00 A.M., at place Sunnena (Thutti), the driver, namely Shri Yog Raj Chauhan, while driving the bus, bearing registration No. HP642198, rashly and negligently, caused the accident, in which deceased Geeta Devi sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The said findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. Issues No. 3 and 4: 10. It was for respondent No. 1 (owner-insured) to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, has not led any evidence. Even, respondent No. 1 (owner-insured) has not questioned the impugned award. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 are upheld. Issues No. 5 and 6: 11. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid & effective driving licence and the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, has not led any evidence to prove the same, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Viewed thus, how can it lie in the mouth of the appellant-insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the owner-insured has committed any willful breach. The Tribunal has rightly determined issues No. 5 and 6, are, accordingly upheld. Issue No. 2: 12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was a housewife and the amount awarded is excessive. According to him, the claimants have pleaded that the income of the deceased was 4,000/per month and a house wife is not earning more than 3,000/. The argument is totally misconceived. Shoe wearer knows where the shoe pinches. It is only a house wife who maintains the house and other domestic affairs. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions on issue No. 2 in paras 16 to 20 and 23, need no interference. 13. Having said so, the amount awarded is adequate, cannot be said to be excessive, in anyway. 14. Viewed thus, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 15. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 15. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.