Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Vikky Devi and others - Appellants
Versus
Shri Kuldeep Bhatia and others - Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 103 of 2012
Decided On : 02-12-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Sunita Sharma
The court emphasized the summary procedure to be adopted without succumbing to procedural technicalities, and upheld the claimants' entitlement to compensation based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166, Chapter XII - Summary procedure to be adopted without succumbing to procedural technicalities - Key legal provisions interpreted and applied: Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act - The court emphasized the summary procedure to be adopted without succumbing to procedural technicalities, citing key legal provisions from the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also referred to judgments to support its view.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition for compensation after a vehicular accident resulting in death. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, but the court found in favor of the claimants, emphasizing the summary procedure to be adopted without succumbing to procedural technicalities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants proved the driver's negligence and were entitled to compensation. It also upheld the maintainability of the claim petition and rejected the arguments of non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. The court awarded compensation to the claimants and directed the insurer to deposit the amount with interest.
Issues: The issues included the driver's negligence, maintainability of the claim petition, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, the deceased's status as a gratuitous passenger, the validity of the driver's license, and the insured's breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the summary procedure to be adopted without succumbing to procedural technicalities, and upheld the claimants' entitlement to compensation based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned award, and directed the insurer to deposit the awarded compensation with interest.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MACP No.20-P/2006, titled Vikky Devi and others versus Kuldeep Bhatia and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants came to be dismissed, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
2. Insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them.
3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
4. Claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition which was resisted by all the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal.
1. Whether the respondent No. 2 was driving the tractor No. HP-37-7665 owned by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner on 19.12.2005 and had hit the said tractor against the deceased Kamaljeet Singh Bhatia, and caused his death? OPP.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-1&2.
4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPR-1&2.
5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger as alleged? If so its effect? OPR-3.
6. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident as alleged? OPR-3.
7. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied by respondent No. 1 in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? If so its effect? OPR-3.
8. Relief.
5. Claimants examined five witnesses and claimant No. 1 Smt. Vikky Devi herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1. Respondents, on the other hand examined three witnesses and respondent No. 2 Manjit Singh Bhatia driver of offending vehicle stepped into the witness-box as RW1.
6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence determined issue No. 1 against the claimants and dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal has held that the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short “the Code” was filed against Manjit Singh driver in which accused Manjit Singh was acquitted vide judgment Ext. RW1/C and accordingly held that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.
7. In civil cases, the parties have to prove their cases by preponderance of probabilities. In summary cases like granting of compensation, in terms of the mandate of Section 166, Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, summary procedure has to be adopted, without succumbing to the niceties and technicalities of procedure. It is beaten law of the land that technicalities or procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play.
8. My this view is fortified by the judgment delivered by the apex court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 646, N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 and Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 J&K 81.
9. This Court has also laid down the similar principles of law in FAO No. 692 of 2008 decided on 4.9.2015 titled Cholamandlan MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Jamna Devi and others, FAO No. 287 of 2014 along with connected matter, decided on 18.9.2015 titled Tulsi Ram versus Smt. Beena Devi and others, FAO No. 72 of 2008 along with connected matter decided on 10.7.2015 titled Anil Kumar versus Nitim Kumar and others and FAO No. 174 of 2013 decided on 5.9.2014
