Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2051 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anand Kumar

2016-09-23

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 17th March, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 53 of 2003, titled as Shri Anand Kumar versus Sh. Santosh Kumar & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,32,783/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization was awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimant, owner-insured and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the following grounds: “(i) Whether the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; (ii) Whether the owner-insured has committed willful breach. 4. The claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition by filing replies. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-33-2107 on 18.03.2003 at place Pirdi, being driven by respondent No. 2? ….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? ..OPP 3. Whether respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? …OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Police as well as provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, as alleged? …OPR-3 5. Whether this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR 1 & 2 6. Relief.” 7. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,32,783/- in favour of the claimant and saddled the insurer with liability. Issue No. 1 8. There is no dispute qua findings recorded on issue No.1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,32,783/- in favour of the claimant and saddled the insurer with liability. Issue No. 1 8. There is no dispute qua findings recorded on issue No.1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Before dealing with issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No.3 to 5. Issues No.3 to 5. 10. 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 or the owner-insured has committed willful breach, or the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, has not led any evidence, has failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly recorded findings in paras 30 to 32 of the impugned award. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer has argued that he has moved CMP No. 461 of 2011, for leading additional evidence. 12. The aim and object of granting compensation in terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to grant compensation to the claimants, as early as possible, in order to save them from social evils. 13. More than 13 years have elapsed from the date of accident till today and the claimant is waiting for the compensation. Only on this ground, the application merits to be dismissed, is accordingly dismissed. 14. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. Issue No. 2. 15. I have gone through the entire record. The Tribunal has awarded just and appropriate compensation, is accordingly upheld. 16. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award is to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 17. The Registry is directed to release the entire 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 his account. 18. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.