Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1679 (HP)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Janki Devi

2016-08-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against award dated 14th February, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC No. 9 of 2006, titled as Janki Devi versus Shri Mehar Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer-appellant came to be saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting the claim petition and saddling the insurer with liability on the following two grounds: (i) Driver, namely, Suchet Singh, was not driving the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant time. (ii) Deceased Pawan Kumar himself was driving the vehicle-tractor bearing registration No. HP-23-2579. 5. The arguments of the learned Counsel are not tenable for the following reasons. 6. The claimant filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Tribunal, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the deceased Pawan Kumar had died on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HP-23- 2579 by the respondent No. 2? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? ….OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present claim petition? …OPR-3 5. Whether there was no contract of Insurance between the respondents No. 1 and 3, as alleged? ….OPR-3 6. Whether the tractor No. HP-23-2579 was being plied by the respondents No. 1 and 2 contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as alleged? ...OPR-3 7. …OPR-3 5. Whether there was no contract of Insurance between the respondents No. 1 and 3, as alleged? ….OPR-3 6. Whether the tractor No. HP-23-2579 was being plied by the respondents No. 1 and 2 contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as alleged? ...OPR-3 7. Whether the tractor No. HP-23-2579 was being driven by the respondent No. 2 without possessing the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR-3 8. Whether the deceased Pawan Kumar was travelling on the tractor No. HP-23- 2579 as a gratuitous passenger? ..OPR-3 9. Relief.” 9. The claimant examined Shri Rakesh Chandel (PW-1) and Shri Mani Ram (PW-3). The claimant herself stepped into the witness box as PW-2. On the other hand, the driver and insurer have not led any evidence. The owner insured appeared himself in the witness box as RW-1. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained un-rebutted. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver, namely, Suchet Singh, had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant time and caused the accident, in which deceased Pawan Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. There is no rebuttal to the said fact. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly returned findings on Issue No. 1, are upheld. 11. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 8. Issues No. 3 to 8. 15. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove Issues No. 3 to 8, thus have failed to discharge the onus. Viewed thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 to 8 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 16. The adequacy of compensation is not in dispute. The only dispute is-who is to be saddled with the liability? 17. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner has committed any willful breach. The factum of insurance is admitted. Accordingly, the insurer has to satisfy the liability. 18. Having said so, the impugned award merits to be upheld, is accordingly upheld. 19. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing it in her account 20. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. 18. Having said so, the impugned award merits to be upheld, is accordingly upheld. 19. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing it in her account 20. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.