Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 342 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pooja Devi

2016-03-29

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This FAO is directed against the award of the learned MACT Hamirpur, H.P. dated 20.4.2015, passed in MAC Petition No. 44 of 2012. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this FAO are that respondent No. 1 has instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. It is stated in the petition that on 24.1.2012, respondent No. 1- claimant happened to be pillion rider on motorcycle “Pulsar” bearing No. HP-22-A-7126, being driven by her husband Ravinder Chauhan. When they were coming back to home, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-22A-2333, owned and driven by respondent No. 2 herein, came from the opposite direction rashly and negligently. It struck against the motorcycle. The claimant received injuries. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 24 dated 24.1.2012 was registered. 3. The claim petition was resisted by respondent No.2 as well as by the appellant. According to respondent No. 2, the claimant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the petition. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company was that the vehicle was not insured with it at the relevant time. It was being driven by respondent No. 2 without valid registration certificate. 4. The issues were framed by the learned MACT, Hamirpur on 29.5.2013. The learned MACT, Hamirpur awarded a sum of Rs. 15,38,870/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the amount was recovered. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the vehicle in question was driven by the driver without valid and effective driving licence and that the accident has not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. He also contended that the compensation amount is excessive. The learned MACT, Hamirpur has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and that it was a case of composite negligence. He lastly contended that the owner of motor cycle ought to have been made party. 6. I have heard Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company and gone through the award very carefully. 8. The claimant has appeared as PW-1. She has corroborated the contents of the FIR Ext. PW-14/A. The statement of PW-1 Pooja Devi has been corroborated by Ravinder Chauhan (PW-5). 6. I have heard Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company and gone through the award very carefully. 8. The claimant has appeared as PW-1. She has corroborated the contents of the FIR Ext. PW-14/A. The statement of PW-1 Pooja Devi has been corroborated by Ravinder Chauhan (PW-5). The FIR has been registered against respondent No. 2. 9. The claimant was examined by PW-3 Dr. Pushpinder. He had initially treated her and found that there were injuries on her person i.e. hematoma measuring 6 cm x 5 cm on left parietal occipital region. Bleeding from nose was present with history of vomiting with blood stained. The patient was advised CT Scan of head. Laceration on right hand on dorsal aspect measuring 3 cm x 2 cm was present. After CT scan report, injury No. 2 was found to be simple in nature and injury No. 1 was opined to be grievous in nature. He issued MLC Ext. PW-3/A. 10. PW-12 Dr. Apinder Preet Singh deposed that Pooja Devi was treated at PGI. He proved discharge summary Ext. PW-12/B. 11. Smt. Pooja Devi has remained in Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, Chandigarh, as per the statement of PW-2 Col. Dr. Shashi Vadhanan. According to him, the claimant was admitted in Chandi Mandir Hospital on 6.2.2012. She was operated upon on 20.2.2012. She was again operated on 3.11.2012 and was discharged on 14.11.2012. There was damage to her upper and lower limb. The claimant was also examined by the Board of Directors of Command Hospital and disability certificate issued is Ext. PW-2/F. The physical disability was to the extent of 75%. It was irreversible damage. 12. The age of Pooja Devi-claimant was 25 years. The income of the insured has been assessed at Rs. 7000/- and her personal life expenses were taken 1/3rd of Rs. 7,000/-i.e. Rs. 2333/- multiplied by 17. She has also placed on record bills of taxi charges and medical bills vide Ext. PW-7/A to PW-7/E, Ext. PW-8/A, PW-8/B, Ext. PW-9/A to Ext. PW-9/E, Ext. PW-10/A, Ext. PW-11/A and Ext. PW-12/A1. She has been awarded an amount of Rs. 15,38,870/- as compensation. 13. There is sufficient evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Piar Chand. PW-8/A, PW-8/B, Ext. PW-9/A to Ext. PW-9/E, Ext. PW-10/A, Ext. PW-11/A and Ext. PW-12/A1. She has been awarded an amount of Rs. 15,38,870/- as compensation. 13. There is sufficient evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Piar Chand. No contributory negligence can be attributed to PW-5 Ravinder Chauhan, who was driving the motorcycle. The income has been correctly assessed by the learned MACT, Hamirpur. The driving licence is Ext. RW-1/A. It was in the name of respondent No. 2. It was valid w.e.f. 23.10.2009 to 5.4.2028. He was authorized to drive throughout the territory of India vehicles LMV-NT and Motorcycle. The license was issued by the Licensing Authority, Barsar. It was also taken into possession in FIR No. 24 of 2012. There is no fundamental breach of the Insurance Policy. 14. The copy of RC is Ext. RW-1/D. The copy of insurance policy has been duly proved i.e. Ext. RW-1/B. The amount awarded by the learned MACT, Hamirpur is just and fair and calls for no interference. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.