Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 238 (UTT)

Rukma Devi v. National Insurance Co.

2016-06-03

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All the appeals, titled above, have arisen out of the same accident, hence are being taken up for adjudication together. A.O. No. 63 of 2008 2. The accident occurred on 25.8.2006 at 9:30 PM in the hilly Chamba-Rishikesh motor road. It was a case of head on collision where the ascending Bolero motor vehicle hit the Maruti Car coming to the down. Both the vehicles struck together causing injuries to Mr. Shoorveer Singh, driver of Maruti Car. Later on, he lost his life and the cause of his passing away was attributed to such accident. 3. Deceased, a retired personnel, was a man of 66 years, and he did not possess a valid driving licence. At such an age, it was not advisable for him to drive any vehicle in such night hours on the hill road and that too, in full rainy season of August. But even so, he was incurring the risk at his own peril. 4. Nothing has been brought on record to prove that he was employed as a driver somewhere to earn his salary rather the fact shows that he was driving such car which was owned by his own son Richpal Singh. 5. The Tribunal has given finding that complicity of both the vehicles in causing this accident was co-extensive, hence it was a case of contributory negligence, and even after some loss, I feel that Smt. Rukma Devi (widow of deceased) must have been getting some family pension as well from the government, which she has not brought on record anywhere. 6. That apart, it was brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of hearing of Criminal Revision No.217 of 2008, the judgment was rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.12.2013, wherein it is stated that Richpal Singh S/o deceased, entered into a compromise with Mr. Prakash Singh Bhandari (driver of Bolero) against whom case u/s 279 and 304-A IPC was pending before the Magistrate. Although, these penal sections were non-compoundable u/s 320 Cr.P.C. yet, Mr. Richpal Singh got a sum of Rs.1.70 lakh from Mr. Bhandari and thus, the case was got finished at the instance of Mr. Richpal Singh, who also presented the affidavit of Smt. Rukma Devi (his own mother) to show himself as her real representative. Although, these penal sections were non-compoundable u/s 320 Cr.P.C. yet, Mr. Richpal Singh got a sum of Rs.1.70 lakh from Mr. Bhandari and thus, the case was got finished at the instance of Mr. Richpal Singh, who also presented the affidavit of Smt. Rukma Devi (his own mother) to show himself as her real representative. In my opinion, the sole and only motto of Smt. Rukma Devi or her son Richpal Singh is to ensure extracting maximum payment even going out of the provisions of law and that is why, he was instrumental in getting the criminal case done away with, which was ongoing against Mr. Prakash Singh Bhandari. 7. So, in view of what has been set forth above, the Appeal from Order No.63 of 2008, has no force and it is hereby dismissed. A.O. No. 48 of 2008 8. This appeal filed by Mr. Richpal Singh (S/o Smt. Rukma Devi) is liable to be dismissed for the reason that he is one and the same person who has to pay and receive the half amount of the compensation. So, this appeal is also dismissed. A.O. No. 453 of 2008 9. So far as this appeal is concerned, here it needs to be mentioned that the Bolero vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.1. The liability was fastened upon the appellant Anil Bhandari for the reason that his driver Mr. Prakash Singh Bhandari did not have the endorsement of ‘hill driving’ on his licence. Since, the vehicle was duly insured, hence I modify the finding of Tribunal to this effect and shift the liability to pay the amount of compensation along with the interest earned thereon, in this appeal, on the respondent no.1-National Insurance Company Ltd. This way, the appeal filed by Mr. Anil Bhandari is allowed. 10. The amount of statutory deposit along with the interest, if lying in this Court in the above appeals, shall immediately be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned to be disbursed in consonance with this order. 11. Lower court record be also sent back.