Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Dharam Pal and another - Appellants
Versus
Yoginder Pal and others - Respondents
FAO No. 37 of 2010
Decided On : 13-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Lalit K. Sehgal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 3
The liability of the owner and driver in a motor accident case depends on factors such as the status of the deceased as a passenger and the negligence of the driver.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Summary: The court addressed the liability of the owner and driver in a motor accident case. It discussed the negligence of the driver, the status of the deceased as a gratuitous passenger, and the calculation of compensation. The court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and modified the compensation amount based on legal principles established by previous court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of a woman in a motor accident. The Tribunal held the owner and driver liable, and the appellants challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding the driver negligent and the deceased a gratuitous passenger. It modified the compensation amount based on legal principles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal rightly held the appellants liable for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger based on the claimants' case and witness testimony. It also applied legal principles from previous court decisions to modify the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation amount and upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding the owner and driver liable for the accident.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 12th October, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.91 of 2008, titled Yoginder Pal and another vs. Dharam Pal and others, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.3,27,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. owner and the driver came to be saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award).
2. Neither the claimants nor the insurer has questioned the impugned award, therefore, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants i.e. the owner and the driver have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened them with the liability.
4. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellants with the liability.
5. In order to answer the said question, a brief reference may be made to the facts of the case.
6. Claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act) and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It was averred in the claim petition that on 7th June, 2008, a truck bearing Chassis No. KNA 093144 & Engine No. KNH 535817, of Ashoka Leyland make, was hired for carrying articles and devotees to Naina Devi Temple from Rewalsar. The driver of the offending Truck, namely, Chuni Lal (appellant No.2), on return journey, parked the offending truck at village Sadhyani, at a sloppy place, due to which the truck rolled down the road, resultantly Kashaulya Devi, who was in the said truck, sustained multiple injuries and lateron succumbed to the same. An FIR bearing No.188/08 was registered at Police Station, Balh under Sections 279, 336, 337, 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the claimants, being the son and the husband of the deceased, filed the claim petition, as detailed hereinabove.
7. The respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be settled:
“1. Whether on 7.6.2008 at 3 p.m. at Sadhyani, truck applied for, rolled down the road due to negligence of the driver and as such, caused death of Kaushlya Devi? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether deceased Kaushlya Devi was traveling in the truck Engine No.KNH535817 and Chasis No.KNA093144 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck at the time of accident?
4. Relief.”
9. In order to prove the case, the claimants examined PW-1 Dr. K.R. Sharma, PW-2 HC Narpat Ram, PW-3 Pradeep Kumar, PW-4 Yoginder Pal (claimant No.1) and PW-5 Keshav Ram, while respondents examined RW-1 Dhan Dev, RW-2 Sunder Lal and RW-3 Chuni Lal (driver of the offending truck).
10. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. It was also held that the driver of the offending truck was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. However, the Tribunal held that the deceased was traveling in the offending truck as gratuitous passenger, therefore, the Tribunal saddled the owner and the driver (present appellants) with the liability and the insurer was exonerated.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The argument is devoid of any force for the following reasons. The claimants in t
