Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2054 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Rani

2016-09-23

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 31st August, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 24/FTC/2 of 05/06, titled Guljari Lal (deceased) through LRs vs. Sardar Karamjeet Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,46,100/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on it. 3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the vehicle bearing No.HR-38C-7858 was insured, and not the vehicle having No.HR-38D-7858, as was pleaded by the claimants and held by the Tribunal. 4. To verify whether the vehicle having registration No.HR-38C-7858 or the vehicle with registration No.HR-38D-7858 was involved in the accident, this Court, on the last date of hearing, in order to secure presence of the owner and the driver i.e. respondents No.4 and 5, respectively, issued bailable warrants against them through Superintendent of Police concerned, which have been returned unexecuted with the report that the address was not correct. The Superintendent of Police, Ambala was also asked to direct the Station House Officer, Shehzadpur, where the FIR in regard to the accident was registered, to produce the copy of the case diary or shadow diary before this Court. 5. Today, Head Constable Rajinder Singh, Police Station, Shehzadpur, is present. He stated that in regard to the FIR No. 58/2004, challan has already been presented before the court of competent jurisdiction for which reason he could not bring the case diary. He, however, made available photocopy of the shadow diary, made part of the file. On perusal, it transpires that FIR No.58 of 2004, was registered against the driver of truck bearing No.HR-38D-7858, namely, Gurbant Singh. Claimants have also pleaded in the claim petition that the offending truck involved in the accident was HR-38D-7858 and the Tribunal has also held that the offending vehicle was HR-38D-7858. 6. On perusal, it transpires that FIR No.58 of 2004, was registered against the driver of truck bearing No.HR-38D-7858, namely, Gurbant Singh. Claimants have also pleaded in the claim petition that the offending truck involved in the accident was HR-38D-7858 and the Tribunal has also held that the offending vehicle was HR-38D-7858. 6. In the above backdrop, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that though the owner/insured is same, but the vehicle which was insured with the insurer was having No.HP-38C-7858 and that the offending vehicle having registration No.HP-38D-7858 was not insured with the appellant/insurer. 7. In the given circumstances, it cannot be held that the offending vehicle bearing No.HP-38D-7858 was insured for the reason that the insured has not appeared either before the Tribunal or before this Court and has not produced the insurance policy viz-a-viz vehicle bearing No.HR-38D-7858. The insurance policy on record is relating to vehicle bearing No.HR-38C-7858. 8. Having said so, the appeal is allowed, the insurer is directed to satisfy the award, with right of recovery from the owner. It is informed that the amount deposited before the Tribunal by the insurer has already been disbursed to the claimants. It being so, the insurer is at liberty to file execution petition. The owner is at liberty to defend the execution proceedings by placing on record the insurance policy of the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-38D-77858, if any. 9. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of.