Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deputy Commissioner vs Mahender Kumar & Others on 7 April, 2017
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
FAO No. 498 of 2010
Decided on : 07.04.2017
_________________________________________________
{
Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur .....Appellant
Versus
Mahender Kumar & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes.
rt
For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Thakur, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Kush
Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondents: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1.
Nemo for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for
respondents No. 3 & 4.
Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 5.
___________________________________________________
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)
Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 4th June, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC No. 39 of 2006/03, titled Mahender Kumar versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:07:40 :::HCHP 2 Chhota Ram & others, whereby compensation to the .
tune of ` 1,33,500/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs to the tune of ` 2,000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and owners and drivers of both the vehicles, i.e. car bearing registration of No. HP-24-0007 and car bearing registration No. PB-02U-
2934 were saddled with liability (for short the "impugned rt award").
2. The appellant-owner of vehicle-car bearing registration No. HP-24-0007 has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
3. The claimant, drivers of both the offending vehicles, owner of car No. PB-02U-2934 and its insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count.
Thus, it has attained finality, so far the same relates to them.
4. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that drivers of both the offending vehicles were driving their vehicles rashly and negligently and 2 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:07:40 :::HCHP 3 caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained .
injuries and suffered 9% permanent disability. FIR was lodged against drivers of both the offending vehicles.
5. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of of objections.
6. rt Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:
" 1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4? ....OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to?
....OPP
3. Whether the respondent No. 4 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so, with what effect? ...OPR-5
4. Relief."
Issue No. 1.
7. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:07:40 :::HCHP 4 documentary, has rightly held that drivers of both the .
offending vehicles had driven the said vehicles, rashly and negligently, at the relevant point of time and caused the accident.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant was not of able to show as to how the driver of vehicle No. HP-24- 0007 was not rash and negligent while driving the said rt vehicle. The driver and owner of another vehicle has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1.
9. Having said so, the discussion made by the Tribunal in paras-9 to 18 of the impugned award needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld.
10. Before dealing with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issue No. 3.
Issue No. 3.
11. It was for respondent No. 5-insurer of vehicle No. PB-02U-2934 to discharge the onus, has not led any 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:07:40 :::HCHP 5 evidence, thus has failed to do so. Accordingly, the .
findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld.
Issue No. 2.
of
12. Admittedly, the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, was taken to Zonal Hospital, rt Bilaspur and thereafter was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and remained on medical and earned leave w.e.f.
29.06.2002 to 31.01.2003.
13. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 20 to 30 of the impugned award relating to issue No. 2 and has awarded the just and appropriate compensation, is accordingly upheld.
14. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld.
15. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, 5 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:07:40 :::HCHP 6 through payees account cheque or by depositing the .
same in his account.
16. The appeal stands disposed of, as indicated above.
17. Send down the records after placing a copy of of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.
rt
April 7, 2017 (Mansoor Ahmad Mir),
(hemlata) Chief Justice
6
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:07:40 :::HCHP