Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1149 (HP)

United India Ins Co. Ltd. v. Chander Kanta

2019-08-13

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since, both the appeals, arise, from an ill-fated common mishap, hence involving, the, offending vehicle, thereupon both are amenable, for, a common verdict being recorded thereon. 2. The instant appeals stand directed, against, the impugned award(s), pronounced by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P, respectively, upon MAC petition No. 4-s/2 of 2016, and, upon MAC Petition No. 35-s/2 of 2015, (i) wherethrough hence compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs. 15,91,000/-/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, commencing from the date of filing, of, the petition, till its payment, stood assessed, vis-`-vis, the disabled claimants, impleaded as respondents, in FAO No. 25 of 2019. Likewise, hence compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 22,30,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, commencing from the date of filing of the petition, till its payment stood assessed, vis-`- vis, the disabled claimants, hence impleaded as respondents, in FAO No. 24 of 2019. The apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon, the insurer. 3. The learned counsel appearing, for the aggrieved Insurer, has fairly submitted, before this Court that he would not be making any espousal, before this Court, for modifying the compensation amount, determined, vis-`-vis, the afore claim petitioners, hence by the learned tribunal, (ii) and also, he proceeds to submit that he would not be challenging, the, returning of dis-affirmative findings, upon, issues No. 5 and 6, as stood formulated, by the learned tribunal, in both, the afore claim petition(s). However, he further submits, that he would be confining his onslaught, vis-`-vis, the impugned award, only qua the validity, of, returning of affirmative findings, upon, issue No. 1, appertaining to the ill-fated mishap, involving the offending vehicle, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving thereof, by respondent No. 2. In succoring his afore submission, he espouses qua the claimants, in both the claim petition(s), not ensuring adduction into evidence, of, any credible ocular account, vis-`-vis, the occurrence, rather when they merely ensured adduction into evidence, of the apposite FIR, embodied in Ext. In succoring his afore submission, he espouses qua the claimants, in both the claim petition(s), not ensuring adduction into evidence, of, any credible ocular account, vis-`-vis, the occurrence, rather when they merely ensured adduction into evidence, of the apposite FIR, embodied in Ext. PW1/A with ascriptions therein, vis-`-vis, tort of negligence, being committed by respondent No. 2, (ii) and with the FIR not comprising, a, substantive piece, of evidence, whereas rendition, of, independent credible ocular account(s), vis-`-vis, the relevant mishap, being imperative, for sustaining, the, findings, returned upon issue No. 1, (iii) and conspicuously, whereas the afore independent credible ocular account(s), vis-`-vis, relevant mishap, remaining un-adduced, (iv) thereupon any reliance placed, upon the apposite FIR, embodied in Ext. PW1/A, rather being not meritworthy. However, the further submission, is un-meritworthy, nor is acceptable, as, in the reply furnished by the Insurance Company, vis-`-vis, the claim petition, it had projected a stand, qua respondent No. 2, not being negligent, nor being rash in his driving the offending vehicle hence bearing No. HP-01A-1125. Through, the afore projections, though the Insurance Company, had, strived to dis-impute hence ascription(s), of tort, of negligence, vis-`-vis, respondent No. 2, yet when furtheronwards, there is no espousal, reared in the apposite reply, furnished to the claim petition, by the Insurer, qua the mishap, involving the offending vehicle, rather being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving, of, a vehicle, other than the offending vehicle, (iii) whereas, the rearing of the afore contention, was imperative, for, thereafter this Court, concluding, that, the afore contention, being meritworthy, obviously, hence non rearing of the afore contention, also renders, the, afore simplistic reply, furnished by the respondent No. 1, qua respondent No. 2, not being negligent, rather to not obviously hold the requisite merit. 4. Be that as it may, even though, no independent credible ocular account, vis-`-vis, the relevant mishap, hence stands testified, (i) however, even on the afore anvil, the Insurance Company, cannot be, permitted to escape its liability, vis-`-vis, the compensation amount, determined, respectively in MAC Petition No. 35-S/2 of 2015, and, in MAC petition No.4-s/2 of 2016, (i) given the learned counsel, for, the Insurer, hence , not objecting, vis-`-vis, the tendering into evidence, of, the apposite FIR, embodied in Ext. PW1/A, wherein clear, and, candid echoing(s), are, borne, vis-`-vis, the tort of negligence, being committed by respondent No. 2. PW1/A, wherein clear, and, candid echoing(s), are, borne, vis-`-vis, the tort of negligence, being committed by respondent No. 2. Want of rearing of objections, by, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vis-`vis, embossing of exhibition mark(s), upon, the apposite FIR, hence marshals a conclusion, qua the echoing(s), borne in Ext.PW1/A, being truthful, (ii) and, also when thereafter, the, learned counsel for the Insurer, did not, ensure the stepping into the witness box, of, one Jagmohan, the informant, for hence his being cross-examined, vis-`-vis, the veracity(s), of, the recital(s) borne in Ext. PW1/A. Consequently, all the afore omissions, rather bolster an inference, qua irrespective, of, the factum, qua no independent, credible ocular account, vis-`-vis, the relevant mishap, rather coming to be testified, by, the apposite ocular witness(es), rather not enabling, the, making of any conclusion, qua, hence despite all the afore acquiescing(s), rather also all afore effect(s), of, the afore omission, suffering effacement. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeals, and, the same are dismissed. The impugned verdict(s), pronounced by the learned MACT concerned are maintained and affirmed. All the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.