Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1382 (HP)

Chander Shekhar v. Lal Singh

2016-07-15

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These appeals are outcome of the judgment and award dated 13.1.2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III) Shimla, H.P., in MAC petition No. 67-S/2 of 2006, titled Sh. Lal Singh alias Lali versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,93,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, and owner came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Owner has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 129 of 2011, on the ground of saddling him with the liability and the claimant, by the medium of FAO No. 239 of 2012 has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. Thus, the questions to be determined in these appeals are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner with the liability and discharged the insurer?; (ii) Whether the amount awarded is adequate? 4. It was the positive case of the claimant before the Tribunal that deceased Meera Devi was the wife of claimant Lal Singh, who was dealing with vegetables. As per averments contained in para 10 of the claim petition, she was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith her goods. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the claim petition herein. “10. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle No. HP-62-0289 from Dhali alongwith her goods when the vehicle reached near village Shankli it met with an accident.” 5. Owner-Respondent No.2 has admitted paras 8 and 10 of the claim petition. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 and 10 of the reply herein. “8.Contents of para-8 of the petition are admitted. 9….. 10. Contents of para-10 are also admitted. The deceased was travelling in vehicle No. HP-62-0289. She boarded the vehicle alongwith her goods and she paid freight to the driver of the replying respondent and she was going to Shankli alongwith her goods.” 6. The driver has also admitted para 10 of the petition. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the reply filed by the driver-respondent No.3 herein. “Contents of paras 8, 9 and 10 of the petition are not denied.” 7. The driver has also admitted para 10 of the petition. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the reply filed by the driver-respondent No.3 herein. “Contents of paras 8, 9 and 10 of the petition are not denied.” 7. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods and has paid freight. There was no need to frame such an issue. It appears that the Tribunal has framed the said issue, in view of the reply of the insurer. 8. I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence on record. One comes to an inescapable conclusion that it is admitted fact that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and has paid freight. Thus, she cannot be said to be travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passenger. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 6 are set aside and it is held that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. 9. Issue No.7. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach. The insurer has failed to prove that the owner has committed willful breach. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 7 are upheld. 10. The Tribunal has decided issues No. 3 to 5 and 7 to 9 in favour of the insurer. There is no challenge to these issues. Thus, the findings returned on these issues are upheld. 11. As discussed hereinabove, findings on issue No. 6 are set aside. The question is who is to be saddled with the liability? 12. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the insurer has to satisfy the award. 13. Adverting to FAO No. 239 of 2012. The question is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise. 14. The amount awarded is adequate and cannot be said to be meager, for the following reasons. 15. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 15 and 16 of the impugned award, are upheld. However, interest was to be awarded at rate of 7.5% per annum, for the following reasons. 16. 14. The amount awarded is adequate and cannot be said to be meager, for the following reasons. 15. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 15 and 16 of the impugned award, are upheld. However, interest was to be awarded at rate of 7.5% per annum, for the following reasons. 16. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Satosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014, AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 , and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 17. Accordingly, interest @7.5% per annum is awarded from the date of claim petition till realization of the amount. 18. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award and is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in his bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as costs in favour of the claimant. 19. Viewed thus, the appeal being FAO No. 129 of 2011 is allowed, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and FAO No. 239 of 2012 is dismissed. 20. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.