Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 367 (HP)

Rakesh Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar

2016-03-31

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.7.2014 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Camp at Bilaspur in M.A.C. No. 07/2 of 2009. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No.1-claimant (hereinafter referred to as the “claimant”) filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Prem Lata in a road side accident on 11.5.2009 involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-28-1995 owned by appellant Rakesh Kumar and ensured with respondent No.3-United Insurance Company Limited. Briefly stated case is that on 11.5.2009 at about 11.00 A.M., Prem Lata was going to the shop at village Bum alongwith her husband Nand Lal (now deceased) in a jeep from place Karanguhi. When they reached at place Bum, Nand Lal alighted from the jeep. When Prem Lata was getting down from the jeep, the driver started driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Prem Lata fell down and sustained multiple injuries on her person. She was taken to Hospital, Bharari. Thereafter, she was referred to District Hospital, Hamirpur then to Tanda Medical College and ultimately to PGI, Chandigarh. She remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh till 18.5.2009. Claimant spent Rs. 25,000/- on last rites of the deceased. Rs. 50,000/- were spent towards medicine and transportation etc. Prem Lata was the mother of claimant. She, being a house wife, was doing house hold works and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. She was helping her husband in cloth business and from agriculture she was having income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Sandeep Kumar respondent No.2. FIR bearing No. 71/2009 was registered on 11.5.2009 in Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur under section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petition was contested by the owner Rakesh Kumar as well as by driver Sandeep Kumar. On merits, it was contended that Prem Lata jumped from the jeep. The accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Sandeep Kumar. He was driving the jeep slowly and cautiously. 4. The insurance company also filed the reply. According to the reply filed by the insurance company, the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person. The driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. The accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Sandeep Kumar. He was driving the jeep slowly and cautiously. 4. The insurance company also filed the reply. According to the reply filed by the insurance company, the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person. The driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was not having any route permit, fitness certificate and registration certificate. 5. Reply was also filed by respondent No.4 Rattani Devi. According to her, she had sold the vehicle to the appellant Rakesh Kumar vide affidavit dated 8.9.2008. The possession was also handed over to him. 6. Issues were framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 2.1.2012. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the petition and claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. 7. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the award has been passed on conjectures and surmises. He has also argued that his client was not served with any summons. The liability could not be fastened upon the appellant. 8. I have heard Mr. Neel Kama Sharma and have gone through the award dated 24.7.2014. 9. The FIR is Ex.P-1. It was registered for offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the averments made in the FIR, at Bum Chowk, the jeep stopped and Nand Lal alighted from it. When his wife, namely, Prem Lata was getting down from the jeep, driver drove the jeep about 100 meters. Prem Lata fell down. She sustained injuries on her head and other parts of the body. She was taken for treatment to CHC, Bharari. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 10. Claimant Rakesh Kumar has appeared as PW-1. According to him, his mother by doing work at home and agricultural chorus used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. She was also earning Rs. 5,000/- by stitching clothes. The claimant is the legal heir of the deceased. 11. The driver, i.e. respondent No.2 Sandeep Kumar has not appeared in the witness box. He was the material witness to explain the circumstances in which the accident has taken place. Thus, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly drawn adverse inference against the driver. 12. 5,000/- by stitching clothes. The claimant is the legal heir of the deceased. 11. The driver, i.e. respondent No.2 Sandeep Kumar has not appeared in the witness box. He was the material witness to explain the circumstances in which the accident has taken place. Thus, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has correctly drawn adverse inference against the driver. 12. The vehicle involved in the accident, i.e. HP-28-1995 was a goods carrier vehicle. It was carrying passengers. Thus, Prem Lata was a gratuitous passenger. The vehicle was driven in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 13. Sh. Vipul Thakur, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Sandeep Kumar before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The reply was filed on their behalf. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma that his client was not issued any summons. 14. The vehicle in question was already sold to the appellant on the basis of affidavit dated 8.9.2008. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. one lakh towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, conventional damages etc. Since the vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the appellant has rightly been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. 15. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.