Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Charan Dass - Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh and others - Respondents
FAOs (MVA) No. 481 and 512 of 2009
Decided on : 6-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Mr. G.R. Palsara
For the respondents: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Mr. G.R. Palsara, Mr. B.M. Chauhan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly focusing on pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The judgment discusses the compensation awarded in a motor accident case and the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 166. The court analyzed the evidence and laid down guidelines for assessing compensation under various heads, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a mason, was hit by a tractor and sustained multiple injuries. He sought compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal. The appeals were filed seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the right of recovery to the insurer.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings that the driver caused the accident and that the claimant was entitled to compensation. It set aside the finding that the driver did not hold a valid license and decided in favor of the claimant. The court also assessed the compensation under various heads based on the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.
Issues: The issues included the driver's negligence, entitlement to compensation, validity of the driving license, and legal maintainability of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court for assessing compensation in motor accident cases, particularly focusing on pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It emphasized the need to compensate for loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and directed the insurer to deposit the entire amount with interest within six weeks.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 22.8.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” in Claim Petition No. 72 of 2006 titled Charan Dass versus Amar Singh and other, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.82,822/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery from the insured, hereinafter referred to as the “the impugned Award”, for short”.
2. The claimant in FAO No. 481 of 2009, has sought enhancement of compensation and insured Amar Singh and another have questioned the impugned award, by the medium of FAO No. 512 of 2009, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error granting the right of recovery to the insurer.
Brief facts.
3. Claimant Charan Dass was mason by profession, who on 28.11.2005, was coming on foot from village Dhangyara after laying slab at village Dhangyara, was hit at about 8 p.m. by a tractor bearing registration No. HP-32-0491, which was being driven by respondent No.2 Hukam Chand rashly and negligently. The claimant fell down and sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of his left arm, was taken to PHC Gohar from where he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. He remained admitted in the hospital at Mandi during the period from 28.11.2005 to 29.11.2005 and was referred to IGMC Shimla where he remained admitted during the period 29.11.2005 to 2.1.2006.
4. The claimant had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.
5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed.
(i) Whether respondent No.2 was driving the vehicle No. HP-32-0491, tractor on 28.11.2005 at about 8 P.M. at village Dhangyara, in rash and negligent manner, resulting injuries to the petitioner as alleged? OPP.
(ii) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so as to what amount and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Whether respondent No. 2 at the time of accident was not holding a effective and valid driving licence and was driving the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3.
(iv) Whether the petition is not legally maintainable? OPR-3.
(v) Relief.
6. The claimant himself has appeared in the witness-box as PW1 and examined Dr. Desh Raj Chandel as PW2. The insurer has not examined any witness. However, Sh. Hukam Chand stepped in to the witness-box as RW1.
7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence and pleadings, held that Hukam Chand driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident in which the claimant sustained injuries. No dispute has been raised on the findings returned on issue No. 1, thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld.
8. Before I deal with issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4 at the first instance. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The copy of driving licence is exhibited as Ext. RB on record, which do disclose that he was having a valid and effective diving licence to drive LMV. Trans and HTV. Thus, he was competent to drive the light motor vehicle and heavy transport vehicle. Thus, how can it be said that he was not competent to drive the tractor. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach in order to seek exoneration and right of recovery which it has not done. The onus was on the insurer, has failed to discharge the same. The Tribunal has wrongly returned the findings and decided issue No.3. Thus, the findings returned on this issue are set aside and issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the claimant, driver and owner and against the insurer.
9. Issue No. 4. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus, failed to do so. Accordingly, the issue is decided
