The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer has to indemnify the insured as per the insurance contract and the legal representatives of a deceased claimant are entitled to the awarded amount as it forms part of the estate of the deceased.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

This appeal is on the dockets of this Court right from 26th February, 2010. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 7th November, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.C. No. 18-S/2 of 2008, titled as Shri Surinder versus Smt. Meera Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,33,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be granted in favour of the claimant-Shri Surinder and against the respondents, i.e. the owner & the driver and the appellant-insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

2. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant- insurer has questioned the same by the medium of this appeal.

3. In terms of order, dated 5th March, 2012, the Tribunal was asked to provide opportunity to the parties in order to lead evidence viz-a-viz the disability certificate, Ext. PW-4/A, and the record was also sent back with a direction to the Registry to call back the record after the findings are returned by the Tribunal on this aspect.

4. In sequel to these directions, the Tribunal asked the parties to lead evidence on the issue and returned findings on 13th June, 2012.

5. The appeal came up for consideration before this Court on 8th November, 2012, when CMP No. 785 of 2012, moved by learned counsel for the claimant bringing the factum of death of the claimant- Shri Surinder to the knowledge of the Court, discharging his duties in terms of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”), came to be allowed. The appeal was taken on Board and the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer sought time to move application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased claimant-Shri Surinder.

6. In terms of the mandate of law, in fact, the appeal had abated, however, learned counsel for the appellant moved CMP (M) No. 1896 of 2012 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased claimant-Shri Surinder alongwith CMP (M) No. 1897 of 2012 for condonation of delay, which had crept-in in filing the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased claimant-Shri Surinder. Both the applications were granted on 3rd December, 2012. Thereafter, the appeal was listed on 30th October, 2013, in terms of which, CMP No. 18502 of 2013 laid by the parents of the deceased claimant-Surinder was disposed of. After 30th October, 2013, the Registry has listed this appeal today in Court.

Brief facts:

7. The claimant-injured, Shri Surinder, filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs, being the victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Kapil Dev, while driving the offending vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Pick Up, bearing registration No. HP-51A-9530, which was hired by the claimant-injured for carrying vegetables to Ganahatti, rashly and negligently, on 3rd January, 2006, at 11.30 A.M., at place Mandi Kalan, near Rugra; the offending vehicle rolled down, the claimant-injured suffered injuries, was taken to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, remained admitted there till 4th February, 2006 and has suffered 100% disability.

8. The owner-insured, the driver and the appellant-insurer have resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections.

9. The Tribunal, after perusing the pleadings and the documents placed on record, framed the following issues on 24th September, 2008:

“1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HP-51A-9530 by the respondent No. 2? ...OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ...OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR-1& 2

4. Whether the petitio