Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2198 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Reena Devi

2016-10-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. All these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, thus I deem it proper to club and determine all these appeals by this common judgment. Brief Facts. 2. It is averred in the claim petitions that on 31.1.2010, at about 7.30 p.m. driver, namely, Baldev Ram, was driving vehicle i.e. Tata Tipper bearing registration No. HP 57-3297, rashly and negligently, at Choori Bridge, Tehsil and District Chamba, in which Inder Ram, Naresh Kumar and driver Baldev Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. In all the appeals, the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has questioned the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. for short the Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 20 of 2010, titled Smt. Reena Devi & Others vs. Smt. Bhuwan & Others, MAC Petition No. 23 of 2010, titled as Smt. Geeta Devi & Others vs. Smt. Bhuwan & Another and MAC Petition No. 21 of 2010, titled Smt. Reena Devi & Others vs. Smt. Bhuwan & Another, whereby compensation was granted to the claimants, as per the details given in the respective awards, hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned awards’ on grounds taken in the memo of appeals. 4. The claimants and owner of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned awards, on any count. Thus, the same have attained finality, so far these relate to them. 5. It is specifically pleaded in Claim Petitions No. 21 & 23 of 2010, subject matters of FAO Nos. 34 & 39 of 2012, that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle, i.e. Tata Tipper bearing registration no. HP-57-3297, as owners of the goods. 6. In Claim Petition No. 20 of 2010, subject matter of FAO No. 33 of 2012, it is pleaded that the deceased was driver of the offending vehicle. 7. While going through Claim Petitions No. 21 & 23 of 2010, subject matters of FAO Nos. 34 & 39 of 2012, the fact that the deceased were travelling in offending vehicle as owner of the goods stands upheld by the Tribunal, after scanning the oral as well as documentary evidence. The insurer has not led any evidence to rebut the said factum, thus the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted. 34 & 39 of 2012, the fact that the deceased were travelling in offending vehicle as owner of the goods stands upheld by the Tribunal, after scanning the oral as well as documentary evidence. The insurer has not led any evidence to rebut the said factum, thus the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted. Learned Counsel for the insurer has not contested the impugned awards made in Claim Petitions No. 21 & 23 of 2010, subject matters of FAO Nos. 34 & 39 of 2012, on any other ground. 8. In Claim Petition No. 20 of 2010, (FAO No. 33 of 2012), the deceased was the driver of the offending vehicle and his legal representatives-claimants had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988, for short ‘the MV Act’ for grant of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Claim Petition No. 20/2010 was not maintainable. The argument is not tenable for the following reasons. 10. The aim and object of the MV Act is to grant compensation to the claimants as early as possible without succumbing to the technicalities. 11. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3300/- per month, thus falls within the income slab of Rs. 40,000/- per annum. 12. The Division Bench of this Court has discussed all aspects of law in FAO No. 474 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Sh. Sihnu Ram & others, decided on 28.09.2016. Applying test, the petition was maintainable. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer further argued that the legal representatives of the deceased could have filed the petition in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for short ‘the WC Act’. 14. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 15. In terms of Section 167 of MV Act, the legal representatives have option to file petition either under MV Act or under WC Act. It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the Act herein. “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. 14. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 15. In terms of Section 167 of MV Act, the legal representatives have option to file petition either under MV Act or under WC Act. It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the Act herein. “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 16. The claimants had two remedies available with them; one to file claim petition before the Tribunal and other to file petition under the WC Act. They have chosen to knock the door of the Tribunal under the MV Act. 17. This Court in FAO No. 363 of 2006 titled Smt. Rajo Devi vs. Sh. Madan Lal Sharma and Others decided on 2.5.2014, FAO No. 530 of 2009 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Kamlo and Others decided on 25.7.2014 and FAO No. 227 of 2006 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nishan Surya and Another decided on 3.1.2014 has laid down the similar principles of law. 18. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in the said claim petition is not excessive, rather falls within the parameters of the MV Act. 19. Having said so, the impugned awards are upheld and all the appeals are dismissed. 20. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned awards through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 21. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunals’ file.