The judgment establishes the principle of upholding findings related to rash and negligent driving, entitlement to compensation, and adequacy of awarded compensation. It also emphasizes the need for the insurer to prove the driver's lack of a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

CMP (M) No. 562 of 2014 in FAO No. 198 of 2014

Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.

2. By the medium of this limitation petition, the appellant-applicant has sought condonation of delay of six years, four months and nineteen days, which has crept-in in filing the present appeal.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant- applicant stated at the Bar that the other two appeals arising out of the same judgment/award, being FAOs No. 488 of 2007 and 315 of 2008, have already been admitted. Accordingly, I deem it proper to condone the delay in the present appeal also. Ordered accordingly. The application is disposed of.

FAO No. 198 of 2014

4. Appeal is taken on Board.

5. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. Harish Bahl and Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocates, waive notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, respectively. FAOs No. 488 of 2007, 315 of 2008 and 198 of 2014

6. All these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by owner-cum-driver, namely Shri Rakesh Kumar, while driving jeep, bearing registration No. HP- 55-1771, rashly and negligently, on 25th December, 2003, at about 12.00 P.M. near Village Chaukat on Nadaun-Majheen road. Thus, I deem it proper to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.

7. In FAO No. 488 of 2007, the insurer-United India Insurance Company has called in question the award, dated 25th August, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra Division at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 42-G/II-2004, titled as Ravinder Kumar Sharma versus Rakesh Kumar & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured with interest @ 7½% per annum from the date of the petition till deposition of the amount (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

8. The insurer-United India Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in asking the insurer-United India Insurance Company to satisfy the award and then to recover the same from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.

9. The claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award, by the medium of FAO No. 315 of 2008, so far it relates to adequacy of compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

10. FAO No. 198 of 2014 is directed against the impugned award whereby the owner-cum-driver was saddled with liability, but the insurer-United India Insurance Company was asked to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner-cum-driver.

11. In order to determine the issues and return findings in all the three appeals, viz-a-viz, the questions in dispute, it is profitable to give a brief resume of the facts of the case.

Brief facts:

12. Claimant-injured, namely, Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, being the victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the owner-cum-driver, namely, Shri Rakesh Kumar, while driving the jeep, bearing registration No. HP-55-1771, rashly and negligently, on 25th December, 2003, hit motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-36-5958, which was being driven by the claimant-injured, sustained injuries, has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition.

13. The insurer-United India Insurance Company and the owner-cum-driver have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections.

14. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 19th November, 2004:

“1. Whether on 25.12.2003, the respondent No. 1 was driving Jeep No. HP-55-1771 in a rash and negligent manner and struck with motor Cycle No. HP-36-5958 driven by petitioner as a result the petitioner sustained multiple injuries as alleged? ...OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ...