Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1935 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Satya

2016-09-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of the common award dated 28th April, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Petition No.35-S/2 of 2009, titled as Smt. Satya and others versus Nuziveedu-Seeds Limited, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with costs assessed to the tune of Rs.5,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The owner-insured and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. The claimants had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition by filing replies. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “(i) Whether Master Nishant had died on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP- 52A-2070 by respondent No. 2? ….OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom, are the petitioners entitled to? …OPP (iii) Whether the respondent No. 2 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, if so, with what effect? ….OPR-3 (iv) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? …OPR-3 (v) Whether respondent No. 1 had contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, with what effect? …OPR-3 (vi) Relief.” 8. Claimants examined HHC Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) and Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-2) and one of the claimants, i.e. Sh. Gian Singh, also appeared in the witness box as PW-3. On the other hand, respondents examined Pradeep Kumar as RW-1. Issue No.1 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by driver, namely, Mohinder Singh. 10. I have gone through the entire record. FIR (Ext. Issue No.1 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by driver, namely, Mohinder Singh. 10. I have gone through the entire record. FIR (Ext. PW-1/A) was lodged against the driver. The respondents have not led any evidence in rebuttal. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal 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 5. Issue Issues No.3 to 5. 12. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the claim petition was not maintainable and the owner has committed willful breach, has failed to do so. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No.3 to 5 are upheld. Issue No.2. 13. The deceased was 8 years old at the time of accident. The compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal, is just and appropriate compensation. 14. The factum of insurance is admitted. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. 15. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeals are dismissed. 17. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.