Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 184 (HP)

Sumit Sareen v. Rano Devi

2016-03-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 10th July, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C.P. No. 47-N/II-2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 76,145/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent herein and against the owner and driver–appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The claimant has not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to her. 3. The owner and driver have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver, which is sine qua non for maintaining the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act”. 4. The FIR No. 30 of 2006, dated 20.1.2006 (Ext. PW-1/A), under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 184 and 187 of the MV Act was registered in Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra and final charge sheet, as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants, was presented against the driver before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which is still pending. 5. It is prima-facie proved that the driver has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the time of accident. I have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has discussed this aspect from para 7 to 14 of the impugned award, needs no interference. 6. Having said so, it is proved that the driver, namely, Sumit Sareen, has driven the offending vehicle, on 20.01.2006, at about 8.00 a.m., at Raja Ka Talab, Tehsil and Police Station Nurpur, caused the accident, in which claimant-injured sustained injuries. 7. The amount of compensation is meager, cannot be said to be excessive, in any way. 8. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award through payee’s cheque, or by depositing the same in her account. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.