Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 880 (HP)

Surat Ram v. Akshay Kumar

2016-05-20

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.6.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 18-NL/2 of 2008/07, titled Akshay Kumar versus Shri Surat Ram and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,85,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum alongwith costs of Rs.1000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimant, insurer and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Insured has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimant had filed claim petition for the grant of compensation before the Tribunal, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the petitioner has suffered injures resulting into disability on account of rash/negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No.2.? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the risk on the date was not covered by the insurance policy purchased by the respondent No.1.? OPR3. (iv) Whether respondent No. 2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence? OPR3. (v) Relief. 6. The findings on the aforesaid issues were recorded by the Tribunal as follows: “Issue No.1 Yes. Issue No.2. Yes, Rs.3,85,000/- from respondent No.1. Issue No.3. No. Issue No.4 No. Relief: Petition allowed as per operative portion of the award.” 7. The findings returned on issues No. 1 and 2 have gone in favour of the claimants and the findings recorded on issues No. 3 and 4 against the insurer but despite that in the operative portion of the impugned award, the Tribunal has saddled the owner with the liability. 8. One comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in doing so. When the findings on issues No. 3 and 4 have been recorded against the insurer and the issues stand proved, how the insurer could have been exonerated. 8. One comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in doing so. When the findings on issues No. 3 and 4 have been recorded against the insurer and the issues stand proved, how the insurer could have been exonerated. The insurer has not questioned the said findings recorded on issues No. 4 and 5. Thus the findings returned on these issues have attained the finality. It is for the insurer to satisfy the award. 9. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer has to satisfy the award. 10. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in his bank account. The amount of Rs.25000/- deposited by the insured is awarded as costs to the claimant. 11. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.