Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Sandeep Thakur vs Smt. Khema Sharma And Others on 4 December, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 412 of 2009 Date of decision: 4th December, 2015 Sh. Sandeep Thakur . .....Appellant.
.
Versus Smt. Khema Sharma and others ...Respondents Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes.
of For the appellant: Mr.V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Ms. Sheetal Kimta, Advocate, for rt respondents No. 3 and 4.
Mr.Aman Sood, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
_____________________________________________________ Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.2.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, H.P. in MACC No. 22-S/2 of 2007, titled Shri Sandeep Sharma versus Smt. Khema Sharma and others, for short "the Tribunal", whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,62,250/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and owner came 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:00 :::HCHP -2-
to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award", for short.
2. Respondents have not questioned the .
impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them.
3. The claimant has not questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of of compensation, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to him with regard to adequacy of rt compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in determining issue No.3 and discharging the insurer and saddling the owner with the liability. I wonder how this argument can be advanced by the claimant whose concern is only to get compensation either from the owner or from the insurer. The claimant is not, in fact, aggrieved by the impugned award. The owner should have filed the appeal, if at all, he was aggrieved.
5. Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal, is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is upheld.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:00 :::HCHP -3-6. Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly, as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through .
payee's cheque account.
7. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.
December 04, 2015. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) (cm Thakur) Chief Justice.
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:26:00 :::HCHP