Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Rattna Karir and others - Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 18 of 2010
Decided On : 18-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.M. Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Baibhav Tanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles of granting compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the application of multipliers for assessing future income loss.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Sections 158(6), 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act - The court discussed the issues related to the motor accident and compensation. The court upheld the findings on issues related to negligence, insurance, and driving license. The court also discussed the principles of granting compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and the application of multipliers for assessing future income loss.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a claim petition for compensation due to injuries sustained in a motor accident. The court upheld the findings related to negligence, insurance, and driving license. The court discussed the principles of granting compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the application of multipliers for assessing future income loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings related to negligence, insurance, and driving license. The court discussed the principles of granting compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the application of multipliers for assessing future income loss.
Issues: The issues included negligence, contributory negligence, compensation entitlement, non-joinder of necessary parties, legal maintainability, insurance, driving license validity, and connivance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the principles of granting compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the application of multipliers for assessing future income loss.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned award to include compensation for medical expenses, future treatment, attendant charges, and transportation charges, and adjusted the multiplier for assessing future income loss.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.9.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kullu, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 67/2006, titled Smt. Rattna Karir versus Shri Jog Dhian and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,04,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short.
2. Claimants and other respondents have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them.
3. Insurer/appellant has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
4. The claimant had filed claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, as per the break-ups given in paras 21 and 24 of the claim petition, which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed.
(i) Whether the claim petitioner suffered injuries in a motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 while driving TATA Indica no. HP-34-9015?OPP
(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of respondent NO. 2 and respondent No. 4, the driver of marutia Zen car No.HP-24-7171?OPP
(iii) If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP.
(iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR1 and 2.
(v) Whether the petition is not legally maintainable as alleged? OPR1 and 2.
(vi) Whether the vehicle NO. HP-34-9015 is not insured with respondent No. 3 as alleged? OPR3.
(vii) Whether the respondent NO. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ?OPR-3
(viii) Whether the petition has been filed in connivance by the petitioner and respondents no. 1 and 2, if so, its effect? OPR-3.
(ix) Relief.
5. Claimant examined Sh. Chamcli Devi as PW2, Tajinder Kumar, PW3, Chander Singh, PW4, Dr. Baldev Singh PW5 and claimant herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1.
6. On the other hand, respondents examined Davinder Singh RW1, Pardeep Kumar RW2 and driver Leela Dhar also stepped into the witness-box as RW3. Some documents were also placed on record, details of which are given in list of witness appended to the impugned award.
7. The Tribunal has held that the accident was caused by driver Leela Dhar while driving Tata Indica car rashly and negligently.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. There is no evidence, oral or documentary, on the file, which can be made basis for holding that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. The Tribunal has discussed Issue No.1 in paras 14 to 28 of the impugned award. The findings returned are perfectly correct, need no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld.
9. In view of the findings returned on issue No.1, findings returned on Issue No. 2 are also upheld.
10. Before I deal with issue No. 3, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 4 to 8 at the first instance.
11. It was for respondents No.1 and 2 in the claim petition to discharge onus on these issues, failed to do so. Thus, findings returned on these issues are to be upheld.
12. Respondents have not led any evidence to prove whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is not legally maintainable. The Tribunal has rightly determined all these issues in favour of the claimants.
13. It is apt to record herein that the law on motor accidents claims has gone through a sea change. Now copy of FIR or police report can be treated as claim petition, in terms of the mandate of Sections 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”.
14. Accordin
