Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 9 (HP)

Satya Devi v. Sher Singh

2016-01-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.1.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 5 of 2007, titled Shri Sher Singh Gorang versus Satya Devi and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.87,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery from appellant herein, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. The claimant in the claim petition has pleaded that the deceased was employee of contractor, namely Tul Bahadur and he had hired Tata Tempo No. HP-06-0961, from Kaza to Rampur for carriage of plastic tanks and other articles, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and met with an accident as a result of which deceased suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The legal representatives of the owner have stated that the contractor had not hired the vehicle and the deceased was their employee. The insurer has denied the liability though admitted the factum of insurance. 4. It is apt to record herein that that the contractor is not party in this lis. 5. Parties have led evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, granted the compensation to the tune of Rs.87,000/- in favour of the claimant. The claimant has not questioned the same thus it has attained finality so far as it relate to him. 7. When the factum of insurance is admitted, the insurer had to pay Rs.50,000/-, on account of no fault liability, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act.” Thus, insurer is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization, in the Registry within six weeks from today. 8. The question is who has to pay the rest amount of Rs.37,000/-. Since the disputed facts are involved and pleadings are at variance, I deem it proper to direct the legal representatives of the registered owner of the vehicle, who have admitted that the deceased was their employee and not the employee of the contractor, to pay rest amount of Rs.37,000/-, with interest as awarded. Ordered accordingly. 9. Since the disputed facts are involved and pleadings are at variance, I deem it proper to direct the legal representatives of the registered owner of the vehicle, who have admitted that the deceased was their employee and not the employee of the contractor, to pay rest amount of Rs.37,000/-, with interest as awarded. Ordered accordingly. 9. The legal representatives of the owner-insured are directed to deposit rest amount of Rs.37,000/- in the Registry within six weeks from today with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 10. In case, the insurer has already deposited the statutory amount plus balance amount in the Registry, the same be released to the insurance company, through payees’ cheque account. 11. Having said so, the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal is disposed of. 12. Send down the records forthwith, along with copy of this judgment.