Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Smt. Shanti Devi – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company & others – Respondents
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Fishi Devi & another – Respondents
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rupi Devi & others – Respondents
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Dungi Devi & others – Respondents
Smt. Rupi Devi & another – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi & another – Respondents
Smt. Fishi Devi - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi & another – Respondents
Smt. Dungi Devi & others – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi & another – Respondents
Smt. Fulma & others – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi & another – Respondents
FAO No. 169 of 2011 a/w FAOs No. 554 to 556 of 2009, 114 to 116 of 2010 and 144 of 2011
Decided on: 25.07.2014
FAO No. 169 of 2011
For the appellant:Mr. Narain Singh Shandil, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5.
FAO No. 554 of 2009
For the appellant:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Narain Singh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
FAO No. 555 of 2009
For the appellant:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Narain Singh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
FAO No. 556 of 2009
For the appellant:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Narain Singh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
FAOs No. 114, 115 & 116 of 2010
For the appellant(s):Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Narain Singh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
FAO No. 144 of 2011
For the appellant:Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Narain Singh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
The importance of evidence in determining liability and entitlement to compensation, and the procedural obligations of the police in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicular Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 158, 166, Second Schedule - The court discussed the issues related to the liability of the insurer and the owner-insured, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation, and the assessment of loss of dependency. The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the liability and entitlement to compensation. The court also highlighted the procedural obligations of the police and the purpose of granting compensation to prevent destitution.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a motor vehicular accident caused by the driver-cum-owner, resulting in various claims for compensation. The claimants sought compensation for the loss of their family members who were traveling in the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased were traveling as owners of the goods in the offending vehicle, and the insurer was held liable for compensation. The court also set aside an award that exonerated the insurer from liability due to lack of evidence. The court assessed the loss of dependency for each claimant and awarded compensation accordingly.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the insurer and the owner-insured, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation, and the assessment of loss of dependency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining liability and entitlement to compensation. The court also highlighted the procedural obligations of the police and the purpose of granting compensation to prevent destitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals by the insurer and upheld the awards for compensation. The insurer was directed to deposit the awarded amount, and the appeals were disposed of along with all pending applications.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
All these eight appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver-cum-owner, namely Shri Manoj Kumar, while driving the offending vehicle-Tata 207, bearing registration No. HP-63-1429, rashly and negligently, on 31st May, 2006, at about 4.45 P.M. near Rawla Kiar. Thus, I deem it proper to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.
2. These appeals have been preferred against various awards made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer has been saddled with liability except in M.A.C. Petition No. 54-S/2 of 2006, titled as Smt. Fulma & others versus Shri Krishan Lal deceased through LR Smt. Shanti Devi & another (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned awards”) on the grounds taken in the respective memo of appeals.
3. In FAOs No. 554, 555 and 556 of 2009, the insurer- National Insurance Company Limited has called in question the impugned awards, dated 4th July, 2009, made by the Tribunal in different claim petitions arising out of the same accident whereby the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has been saddled with liability to satisfy the award; FAOs No. 114, 115 & 116 of 2010 and 144 of 2011 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation granted to them vide the impugned awards and FAO No. 169 of 2011 has been preferred by the owner-insured of the offending vehicle against the impugned award, dated 5th January, 2011, whereby the owner-insured has been saddled with liability.
4. In order to determine the issues and return findings in all these appeals, viz-a-viz, the questions in dispute, it is profitable to give a brief resume of the facts of the case.
Brief facts:
5. The claimants in all the claim petitions, except in M.A.C. Petition No. 54-S/2 of 2006, have specifically averred that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle-Tata 207, bearing registration No. HP-63-1429, as owners of the vegetables, which they had brought to Sabzi Mandi, Dhalli for sale purposes and on return journey from Dhalli to Bhaghal, the offending vehicle met with an accident because of rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver, namely Shri Manoj Kumar, lost their lives including the driver. Their dependents filed claim petitions and sought compensation as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions.
6. In M.A.C. No. 54-S/2 of 2006, the claimants have not specifically averred that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith the vegetables, but it has been specifically averred that the deceased was out with vegetables and was a grocer. It appears that the claimants in the said claim petition have amended the claim petition and have filed amended claim petition.
7. The insurer-National Insurance Company Ltd. and the owner of the offending vehicle resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed in the respective claim petitions. The following issues were framed in M.A.C. Petition No. 54-S/2 of 2006 (subject matter of FAOs No. 144 & 169 of 2011):
“1. Whether Rajinder died by use of vehicle No. HP-63-1429? OPP
2. What amount the petitioners are entitled for by way of compensation, if so, from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in the preliminary objections of reply filed by respondent No. 1? OPR
4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in dispute was not having valid and effective driving
licence? OPR
5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy? OPR
6. Whether there did not exist any valid RC, fitness certificate etc.? OPR
7. Relief.”
9. The Tribunal framed following issues M.A.C. Petition No. 67-S/2 of 2006, which is subject matter of FAOs No. 555 of 20
