Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Indira Devi And Others on 12 March, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO(MVA) No. 451/2014
Decided on. 12.3.2015
_________________________________________________________________
.
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited ..Appellant
Versus
Smt. Indira Devi and others ..........Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the Appellant r : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents : None
_________________________________________________________________
Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
This appeal is instituted against award dated 3.9.2014 rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Petition No. 79-S/2 of 2012.
2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondents-petitioners No. 1 to 3 have instituted a Claim Petition against appellant and respondent No. 4 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of death of Shri Sunder Singh. Accident has taken place on 29.11.2011 at 3.30 pm. The offending vehicle 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:46 :::HCHP 2 was being driven by respondent No. 4, Shri Shambhu Ram.
Deceased sustained multiple injuries over his person. The deceased was working as HDO in the Horticulture Department. He .
was drawing salary of `31,958 per month. He was aged about 52 years at the time of accident. Reply was filed by respondent No. 4.
Respondent No. 4 stated that the accident has taken place due to negligence on the part of the Bus, which was overtaking his vehicle and he turned his car to avoid accident with the bus.
Resultantly, car fell down. The vehicle was insured with the appellant. Appellant also filed reply. According to the reply filed by the appellant, vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Particulars of licence were not disclosed. Driver was responsible for causing accident.
3. Issues were framed on 18.12.2013. Claim petition was allowed on 3.9.2014. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Jagdish Thakur has argued that the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He then contended that the multiplier of 11 could not be applied at the age of 52 years.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully.
6. Deceased was aged 52 years at the time of accident.
He was working as an HDO with the Horticulture Department. His salary has been proved vide Ext. PW1/A. Annual dependency has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:46 :::HCHP 3 been worked out to be `2,55,443/- . Multiplier of 11 has been applied. Multiplier of 11 at the age of 52 is just and proper. There is ample material available on record to prove that the accident .
has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.4. Copy of FIR is Ext. PW3/A. It has been proved by Krishan Dutt (PW3). Post mortem report is Ext. PW-2/D. Driving licence has been proved on record vide Ext. R-3 Thus, respondent No. 4 was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. Cover note is Ext. R.1 Vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. Appellant has failed to prove breach of conditions of mandatory provisions of the insurance policy. Thus, the vehicle in question was being driven as per terms and conditions of the policy.
7. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 12, 2015 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:45:46 :::HCHP