Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1865 (HP)

Mohan Lal v. Urmila Devi

2016-09-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Instant appeal as well as writ petition are directed against the award, dated 14th September, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 9%, from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, and costs to the tune of Rs.3,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. Claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants i.e. respondents No.1 and 4 before the Tribunal, have questioned the impugned award by way of FAO No.11 of 2011, while the insurer has questioned the same by the medium of CWP No.493 of 2011. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. The Tribunal has saddled the insurer with the liability, with right of recovery. I wonder why the insurer has filed the writ petition challenging the impugned award. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured. The deceased was a third party and the insurer is bound to indemnify the third party claims. In case the insured commits willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurer has a right to recover the same from the owner. 6. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531 has laid down same principle. 7. Viewed thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. 8. The appeal i.e. FAO No.11 of 2011 also merits to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein below. 9. It has come on record that Raj Kumar, minor son of appellant Mohan Lal, was driving the offending scooter at the time of accident. The Tribunal in paragraph 10 has made discussion in detail and held that appellant No.2 Raj Kumar had driven the offending scooter rashly and negligently and had caused the accident, in which Parmod Kumar suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal in paragraph 10 has made discussion in detail and held that appellant No.2 Raj Kumar had driven the offending scooter rashly and negligently and had caused the accident, in which Parmod Kumar suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal has also categorically recorded that the police recorded FIR against appellant No.2 Raj Kumar. 10. Having said so, there is no merit in appeal and the same is dismissed. 11. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from today, if not already deposited, and the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants forthwith in terms of the impugned award, through the bank accounts of the claimants. The insurer is at liberty to file application for recovery before the Tribunal concerned.