Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1389 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sheela

2016-07-15

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 26th May, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, District Solan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.26-S/2 of 2008, titled Smt. Sheela & others vs. Sh.Bhupinder Kumar & others, whereby a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the owner-cum-driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the owner had committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived for the reasons enumerated hereinbelow. 5. The claimants, being dependants of deceased Anwar Hussain filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 lacs as per break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. Respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. the owner and the driver, have admitted in their reply that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods. It is apt to reproduce paras 5 and 6 of the reply herein: “5. That the contents of para no.8 to 13 of the petition need no reply being matter of record. However, it is, submitted that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle in the capacity of owner of goods. 6. That the contents of para no.14 to 18 of the petition need no reply being matter of record. The vehicle of the replying respondent was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, The Mall Solan. The photocopy of the cover note is annexed herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 7. Thus, there was admission on the part of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods. The photocopy of the cover note is annexed herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 7. Thus, there was admission on the part of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the insurer to claim that the deceased was not traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods and was a gratuitous passenger. 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly returned findings on all the issues, particularly issues No.4 to 6 and the same are upheld. 9. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is meager amount, but, unfortunately, since the claimants have not questioned the impugned award to that effect, the same is reluctantly upheld. 10. Having glance of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld. 11. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimants through their bank accounts, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 12. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.