Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 950 (HP)

Amarjeet Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2016-05-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.4.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1) Kangra at Dharamshala in MACT No. 26-P/II/2005, titled Ghanvir Singh versus Hari Singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,15,343/- alongwith costs to the tune of Rs.2000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability with right of recovery from the owner/insured, 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 the finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Insured/owner has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of the recovery to the insurer. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly granted the right of recovery? The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons. 4. Appellant has specifically averred in para 3 (ii) that owner/insured appellant had engaged one person who was having driving license, who further employed respondent No. 2- driver Hari Singh. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 3 (ii) herein. “3. (i). ….. … (ii) That when specific evidence is given with regards to proof of driving license and it is renewal then question for passing such a impugned award cannot be arise as allegation qua valid and effective driving license has been stand proved and further there is no fault at all qua appellant/respondent No.2 (in the petition) as appellant/respondent No-2 authorize one person who was also having driving license, who further employed respondent no.2 driver Hari Singh…….” 5. In the pleadings appellant/owner has admitted that it was Hari Singh who was driving the vehicle. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the claim petition and para 5 of the reply filed by respondent No.2, i.e., owner/insured, herein. “16.Name and address : As mentioned in the head of driver of the vehicle note of the petition as Respondent No.1.” “5.In reply to para No. 14 to 16, 18, 19: Admitted to be correct” 6. Driver has appeared in the witness-box before the Tribunal and stated that Amarjeet Singh was not his owner. “16.Name and address : As mentioned in the head of driver of the vehicle note of the petition as Respondent No.1.” “5.In reply to para No. 14 to 16, 18, 19: Admitted to be correct” 6. Driver has appeared in the witness-box before the Tribunal and stated that Amarjeet Singh was not his owner. Meaning thereby, he was not knowing by whom he was employed to drive the vehicle. The driver while making statement stated that one Bajir was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 7. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion and came to the conclusion that the insured has committed willful breach and granted the right of recovery, needs no interference. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 8. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.