Himachal Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Devi And Others on 28 June, 2019
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 574 of 2018.
.
Reserved on : 18th June, 2019.
Decided on : 28th June, 2019.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
.....Appellant.
Versus Asha Devi and others ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Mayank Sharma,
Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan,
Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Suri, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5: Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Una, District Una, H.P., upon, MACP No. 53/2017, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP
...2...
.
as stood, cast therebefore, under, the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (i) AND, whereunder, compensation amount, comprised in, a sum of Rs.8,78,792/-alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, was, hence ordered to thereon commence, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, rather stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, claimants, (ii) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein.
2. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant/insurer, has, not contested, the, validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, hence appertaining to the demise of Balwant Chand, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by Pawan Kumar, respondent No.5 herein.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP...3...
.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contended before this Court that (a) since the deceased, as borne, from, his salary certificate, embodiedin Ex.PW2/A, stood, engaged as a part time worker, (b) thereupon, he contends that the apposite, and, relevant accretions or hikes working towards future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, his salary of Rs.4,500/-
per mensem, as stood, drawn by him, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap, being rather ridden with an inherent fallacy, as, (c) the afore rendition of part time services hence by the deceased, are obviously construable, to be merely temporary in nature, and, when the services of the deceased, were disengagable, at any time, (d) rather hence the apt corollary therefrom, is, qua it, being highly speculative to conjure any inference qua permanence of his employment, nor reiteratedly, it can be inferred qua the afore hikes, vis-a-vis, his last drawn salary rather being ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP ...4...
.
meteable thereon. However, the afore submission would be weighty, and, tenacious, upon, evidence being adduced qua the terms, of, engagement of the deceased by his employer (d) with clear unravelings borne therein, vis-a-vis, the services of the deceased surviving only upto a specific period of time, and, the duration of his services, not being, beyond the contractual tenure of services. However, when the afore evidence, is, amiss thereupon it has to be concluded that the part time engagement, of the deceased, as, a part time worker, by his employer rather being amenable to be visited with extensions, and, continuances in service, (e) and, obviously hence also his being facilitated to obtain regularization, in service under his employer, (f) besides his also being visited with concomitant therewith benefits of enhancements or increases, in his per mensem salary,
(g) wherefrom, it is to be concluded that the afore ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP ...5...
.
meteings of hikes, towards future incremental prospects rather not warranting any interference by this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer has contended before this Court (a) that with Ex.RW2/B making echoings qua the driving licence held, by the driver of the offending vehicle rather being fake, and, unauthentic, thereupon, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer rather warranting interference. However, the afore submission also cannot be countenanced by this Court, as, Ex. RW2/B is signatured by the District Transport Officer, Mon, Nagaland, (b) and, when the author of Ex.PW2/B hence stand enjoined to step into the witness box, for, proving, the contents borne therein, whereas, his omitting to step into the witness box, hence, the recitals borne, in Ex.PW2/B rather carry no probative vigour. Moreover, Ex.PW2/B, merely carries an echoing qua the office of District Transport Officer, Mon, Nagaland, being not, in a ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP ...6...
.
position to furnish any information, as, RW-2 sought therefrom, whereupon, it cannot be assuredly concluded, qua the afore information being unauthentic.
Moreover, the insurer has not endeavoured to elicit, through the aegis of the Court, the apposite record appertaining, to the driving licence, of the driver of the offending, maintained in the office of District Transport Officer, to, hence prove the afore espousal qua the driving licence, as held by the driver, of the offending vehicle, rather being fake. On the contrary, the copy of driving licence, borne in Ex.RW1/B, unveils, that its holder standing authorised to drive, the offending vehicle, and, it also holds the seals and signatures, of the issuing authority, thereupon, it acquires an aura, of, authenticity, given neither the seals nor the signatures, as, occurring thereon, standing, proven to be fake or fictitious.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP ...7...
.
sequel, the award impugned before this Court is maintained, and, affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
28 th
June, 2019
(jai)
r to (Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:06:42 :::HCHP