Sh. Jai Singh vs Smt. Reena Devi & Others on 24 July, 2015

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sh. Jai Singh vs Smt. Reena Devi & Others on 24 July, 2015

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir

                                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                       SHIMLA




                                                           .

                              FAO No. 359 of 2008
                              Decided on : 24.07.2015
    _________________________________________________





    Sh. Jai Singh                       .....Appellant
                  Versus
    Smt. Reena Devi & others                ...Respondents




                                      of
    __________________________________________________
     Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
    Whether approved for reporting?
                 rt      reporting?         Yes.

     For the Appellant :              Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate.

    For the Respondents:              Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate,
                                      for respondents No. 1 to 4.

                              Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate, for


                              respondent No. 5.
    ____________________________________________________
    Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

This appeal is directed against the award, dated 16th April, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 18-S/2 of 2005/2002, titled Smt. Reena Devi & others versus Sh. Jai Singh & another, whereby compensation to the tune of `9,79,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:38:02 :::HCHP 2 No. 1 to 4 herein and the owner-appellant herein was .

saddled with liability (for short, "the impugned award").

2. The claimants and insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them.

3. The learned Counsel for the owner argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in exonerating the insurer rt from liability and saddling the owner with the liability.

4. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force for the following reasons.

5. The claimants have averred in paras 10 and 22 of the claim petition that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-09A-0181, but it was not the case of the claimants that the deceased was traveling in the said vehicle with goods or he had hired the vehicle for carrying goods. It is apt to reproduce para-10 and relevant portion of para 22 of the claim petition herein:-

"10. The deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question to Kuthar. 11 to 21 .............

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:38:02 :::HCHP 3

22. The deceased was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle bearing registration No. HP-09- .

0181............................"

6. Appellant-respondent No. 1 in the claim petition has filed reply to the claim petition. It is apt to reproduce para-5 and relevant portion of para 13 of the of claim petition:

"5. That the contents of para 10 of the petition are also admitted as the rt decision was traveling in the vehicle in question alognwith his goods being carried to Village Kuthar.

6. to 12. .............

13. In reply to the contents of para 22 of the petition it is submitted that the deceased late Sh. Ranjit Singh alongwith other occupants boarded the ill fated vehicle alongwith their goods at village Deothi for going to Kuthar and when the said vehicle reached at Kunishdhar near village Kuthar, the same went off the road and fell down into deep gorge........"

7. In the first breath, the owner has admitted the contents of the said paras and in the second breath, he has stated that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods, which is not the case projected by the claimants before the Tribunal.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:38:02 :::HCHP 4

8. The question is whether-this Court can travel .

beyond the pleadings? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons.

9. In terms of the mandate of the provisions of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the of Act', the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. rt The Court has to arrive at prima-facie satisfaction while keeping in view the pleadings of the parties.

10. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The insurance contract/policy (Ext. RW-1/C) is on the file, which does not cover the risk. The owner has committed willful breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act read with the Insurance Policy. Thus, the insurer has not to satisfy the award.

11. Having said so, no interference is required.

Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:38:02 :::HCHP 5

12. The Registry is directed to release the awarded .

amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award.

13. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.

of July 24, rt 24, 2015 (hemlata) (Mansoor Ahmad Mir), Chief Justice ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:38:02 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court