Liability of the HRTC in a motor accident claim petition and the modification of interest rate based on prevailing rates and legal precedents.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

FAO No. 213 of 2011 is directed against the interim award dated 25.03.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Shimla at Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 5-S/2 of 2007, titled as Shri Krishan Singh Shyam and other versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants.

2. FAO No. 337 of 2011 is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2011, made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, for short ‘HRTC’ was saddled with liability, for short ‘the impugned award’.

3. Both these appeals are outcome of the one claim petition relating to the same accident, thus I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.

FAO No. 213 of 2011

4. Interim award was made at the initial stage and thereafter, the claim petition came to be decided, whereby the insurer was exonerated, which merits to be allowed and the interim impugned award is to be satisfied by the HRTC instead of the insurer. FAO No. 213 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly.

FAO No. 337 of 2011

5. Learned Counsel for the HRTC argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

6. I have gone through the entire record.

7. The claimants filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

8. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition by filing replies.

9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether Smt. Krishna Devi died because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. HP-19B-6032 by respondent No. 2, as alleged? …OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? …OP Parties

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? …OPR

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. If so, its effect? …OPR

4(a) Whether the drivers of both the vehicles were not holding and possessing valid and effective driving licences, as alleged. If so, its effect? …OPR-4

4(b) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, its effect? …OPR-4

4(c) Whether the bus was overloaded, as alleged? ….OPR-4

4(d) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? …OPR-4

5. Relief.”

10. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver, namely, Sanjeev (respondent No.2 in the claim petition) had driven HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-19B-6032, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which Krishna Devi sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld.

11. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 4(d).

Issues No. 3 & 4.

12. It was for the respondents to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, have not led any evidence, thus have failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the findings returned by Tribunal on Issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld.

Issues No. 4(a) to 4(d)

13. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the drivers of both the vehicles were not holding valid and effective driving licences and the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, has not led any evidence.

14. I have gon