Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1869 (HP)

Raj Kumar v. Jal Kishan

2016-09-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Legal representatives of the owner/insured have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), and questioned the award, dated 21st April, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.15-S/2 of 2008, titled Jai Kishan versus Indu Singla and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.57,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, the driver and the insurer 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 legal heirs of the owner/insured have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence inasmuch the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was Mahindra Pick Up bearing No.HP-15B-0249, which is a Light Motor Vehicle, as has been held by this Court in FAO No.354 of 2006, titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Sahi and others, decided on 4th April, 2014, FAO No.396 of 2014, titled Gurmail Singh and another vs. Kamla Devi and others, decided on 6th November, 2015 and FAO No.229 of 2011, titled Sanjeev Kumar vs. Manmohan Singh and another, decided on 1st July, 2016, and various other judgments. The driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured/owner has committed willful breach, has failed to do so. Thus, it can safely be held that the owner was not in breach. 7. Having said so, the insurer is saddled with the liability. 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured/owner has committed willful breach, has failed to do so. Thus, it can safely be held that the owner was not in breach. 7. Having said so, the insurer is saddled with the liability. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimant through his bank account. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of the instant appeal is awarded as costs in favour of the claimant and the said amount be released in favour of the claimant forthwith. 8. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is allowed.