Himachal Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Sh. Sham Lal And Othersrt on 4 September, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No. 184 of 2009
a/w FAO No. 216 of 2009,
CO No. 404 & 426 of 2009
.
Decided on: 04.09.2015
FAO No. 184 of 2009
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant.
of
Versus
Sh. Sham Lal and othersrt ...Respondents.
............................................................................................................
FAO No. 216 of 2009
Sham Lal and another ...Appellants.
Versus
Sh. Ravi Kumar and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
FAO No. 184 of 2009
For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior
Advocate, with Ms. Monika Shukla,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:52:26 :::HCHP
: 2 :
Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Mr.
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for respondents
No. 3 and 4.
.
............................................................................................................
FAO No. 216 of 2009
For the appellants: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, vice Mr.
Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for respondents
of
No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior
rt Advocate, with Ms. Monika Shukla,
Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
Subject matter of both these appeals is the judgment and award, dated 05.02.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 42 of 2006, titled as Sham Lal and another versus Ravi Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,71,000/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, against the respondents and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award (for short "the impugned award").
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:52:26 :::HCHP: 3 :
2. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 184 of 2009 on the ground that the .
Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability.
3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 216 of 2009 on the ground of of adequacy of compensation.
4. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have rt filed cross objections in both the appeals on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in recording findings of rash and negligent driving against them.
FAO No. 184 of 20095. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability? The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons:
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer argued that the driving licence was issued on 12.02.2001 and on that date, the driver was not eighteen years of age, thus, the driving licence issued was not a valid and effective driving licence in terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:52:26 :::HCHP : 4 : (for short "MV Act").
7. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any .
force for the following reasons:
8. The accident has taken place on 03.08.2006. On the said date, the driver was more than eighteen years of age, rather of was twenty years of age and the driving licence was renewed from time to time, which is evident from the record. Thus, the rt Tribunal has rightly returned the findings in paras 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment.
9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the ownerinsured of the offending vehicle has committed any willful breach. No such evidence has been led.
10. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference.
11. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
FAO No. 216 of 200912. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:52:26 :::HCHP: 5 :
13. I have gone through the record read with the impugned judgment and of the considered view that no case for .
enhancement is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed.
Cross Objections No. 404 and 426 of 2009 of
14. The crossobjections filed by the ownerinsured and the driver are misconceived. Hence, dismissed.
15. rt Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification.
16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.
17. Copy of this judgment be placed on each of the connected files.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice September 4, 2015 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:52:26 :::HCHP