Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 600 (HP)

Sandeep Mahajan v. Surjeet Singh

2016-04-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. FAO No. 193 of 2010 is directed against the judgment and award, dated 29th April, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 36J/2006, titled as Shri Surjeet Singh versus Shri Sandeep Mahajan and another, whereby compensation to the tune of 5,09,280/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the insured/owner-cum-driver (for short “the impugned award-I”). 2. Subject matter of FAO No. 194 of 2010 is the judgment and award, dated 29th April, 2010, made by the Tribunal in MACP No. 80J/2006, titled as Shri Balwan Singh and another versus Shri Sandeep Mahajan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 58,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its deposition came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insured/owner-cum-driver (for short “the impugned award-II”). 3. Both the appeals are outcome of a vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the insured/owner-cum-driver, namely Shri Sandeep Mahajan, while driving the Maruti Van No. HP38A4895, rashly and negligently, on 11th May, 2005, at Timber Depot, Village Khushi Nagar, in which Shri Surjeet Singh and Laxmi Devi sustained injuries and Laxmi Devi succumbed to the injuries. 4. Injured Surjeet Singh and the legal representatives of deceased Laxmi Devi filed separate claim petitions for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the respective claim petitions, on the grounds taken in the respective memo of the claim petitions. 5. Both the claim petitions were tried separately and after concluding the trial, the Tribunal made the impugned awards and the insured/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle came to be saddled with liability. 6. The claimants and the insurer have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far these awards relate to them. 7. The appellant-insured/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle has questioned the impugned awards by the medium of these appeals on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with liability. 8. Thus, the only question to be determined in these appeals is – whether the Tribunal has rightly discharged the insurer from its liability and directed the insured/owner-cum-driver to satisfy the impugned awards? 8. Thus, the only question to be determined in these appeals is – whether the Tribunal has rightly discharged the insurer from its liability and directed the insured/owner-cum-driver to satisfy the impugned awards? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons: 9. The offending vehicle was a Maruti Van, a private vehicle and was insured only for the private purposes. As per the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy read with the mandate of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), which consists of Sections 145 to 164, particularly Sections 146, 147 and 149, the insurer can be saddled with liability provided the risk is covered and in case the owner-insured commits any willful breach, the insurer is to be discharged. 10. In both the claim petitions, Shri Balwan Singh, who had hired the offending vehicle, has appeared in the witness box as a witness. He has specifically stated that he had hired the offending vehicle and paid 300/- to the insured/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. 11. The said vehicle was not insured for carrying the passengers and could not have been hired. The claimants have themselves admitted that they have hired the offending vehicle. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant/insured/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle has examined Dr. Dev Raj Kaundal as RW2, who has deposed that the deceased and the injured had not hired the offending vehicle. 13. This argument is not tenable for the reason that the person, who had hired the offending vehicle, has himself appeared in the witness box, who is also one of the claimants in one claim petition, has deposed that he had hired the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. Then, how can it be said that he has made a false statement. 14. In the given circumstances, the appellant/insured/owner-cum-driver has committed a willful breach and thus, the insurer cannot be held liable. 15. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussions while deciding issue No. 2, are accordingly upheld. 16. Viewed thus, the impugned awards are well reasoned, need no interference. 17. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned awards are upheld and both the appeals are dismissed. 18. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.