Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Manjani Kumari and Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order (Mva) No. 369 of 2017
Decided On : 24-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Lalit Kumar Sharma, Adv., Vivek Sharma, Adv., Rubeena Bhatt, Adv.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove rash and negligent driving in motor accident cases and the application of legal principles for assessing compensation as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Award - Motor Vehicles Act - S.166
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident and claimed compensation. The Insurance Company resisted the claim on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants successfully proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver. The court also modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, status of the deceased as a passenger, collusion, driving license validity, and insurance policy compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the successful proof of rash and negligent driving, lack of evidence to rebut the claimants' case, and the application of legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the Tribunal's award was modified based on the findings and legal principles.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. By way of instant appeal having been filed by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter, 'appellant-Insurance Company') challenge has been laid to Award dated 23.5.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 37-R/2 of 2016/2015 titled Smt. Manjani Kumari and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by respondents No.1 to 3-claimants held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.19,61,000/- to respondents No.1 to 3/claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition and till the final realisation of the amount. Though the learned Tribunal below held appellant-Insurance Company and respondent No.4 jointly and severally liable, but the appellant-Insurance Company being insurer, has been directed to indemnify the claimants.
2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that respondents No.1 to 3 being legal representatives of deceased Sher Singh, filed a petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, H.P., alleging therein that on 16.9.2014, deceased Sher Singh, while coming alongwith other persons from Rampur after unloading and selling milk, in vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-3682, met with an accident, as a consequence of which he suffered serious injuries resulting into his death. Respondents-claimants averred in the petition that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased Driver, Govind Ram. In the aforesaid accident, Sher Singh and other two occupants died on the spot. Since deceased Sher Singh was head of the family and was the only bread earner of the family, respondents-claimants, by way of the claim petition as referred to above, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 Lakh.
3. Appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition on the ground that the respondents/claimants have filed the claim petition in collusion with respondent No.4, Gian Dass, owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-3682. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed before the learned Tribunal below that the deceased Driver Govind Ram was not having an effective and valid driving licence and vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as such, appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Apart from above, appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that the deceased Sher Singh was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the ill-fated vehicle, as such, no compensation is liable to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company on account of his death in the alleged accident.
4. Respondent No.4 Gian Dass, by way of a separate reply, while placing on record Insurance Policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company, claimed that the amount claimed by the respondents/claimants is excessive and without any basis.
5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, framed following issues on 4.1.2016 :
"1. Whether Sh. Sher Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-06A-3682 being driven by its Driver? OPP
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the deceased at the relevant time was traveling as unauthorized gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, as alleged? ..OPR-1
4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.2, as alleged? ..OPR-1
5. Whether the Driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ....OPR-1
6. Whether the o
