Point of Law: Award of Compensation - Third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provision of Section 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is owner of Indica car No.HP-01A0332. This car met with an accident on 21.02.2008 that also involved a truck bearing No. HP-20-7785. The accident resulted in causing injuries to one Bhushan Kumar Sharma. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) vide its award dated 20.12.2013 allowed compensation of Rs.3,85,472/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount in favour of the claimant. The liability to satisfy the awarded amount was fastened upon the owner and driver of the car. Feeling aggrieved, owner of the car has preferred instant appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced submissions on the following main points: -

(i) The findings of the learned Tribunal that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by appellant’s driver Shyam Lal (respondent No.9), is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.7.

(ii) Even if it is held that the accident was caused because of negligent driving by respondent No.9 then also the liability to pay the awarded compensation amount should have been fastened upon respondent No.2- Insurance Company (the insurer of Indica car).

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also seen the record. For convenience, the above two main points, around which learned counsel for the parties made their submissions, are being discussed separately hereinafter.

4. Point No.1: Issue of negligence

The relevant facts may first be noticed.

4(i)(a) On 21.02.2008, the claimant was travelling in Tata Indica car No.HP-01A-0332 and going from Mandi to Indore. This vehicle was being driven by respondent No.9. The appellant was the owner of this vehicle. Near ‘Kawari Dhank’, District Mandi, this vehicle struck against a truck No. HP-20- 7785, being driven by Satpal Singh (respondent No.7). The accident resulted in giving multiple injuries to claimant Bhushan Kumar Sharma. He remained admitted in Zonal Hospital Mandi, PGI Chandigarh and Fortis Hospital Chandigarh. He also received treatment from Harihar Hospital Mandi and Kullu Valley Hospital, District Kullu, H.P. On 12.04.2010, Bhushan Kumar instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 20.12.2013 held that the accident in question was caused because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.9 i.e. driver of car, owned by the appellant. The payable compensation to the claimant was worked out at Rs.3,85,472/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum.

4(i)(b) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal regarding accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9 was contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. It was argued that the claimant had specifically averred in para-24 of the claim petition about the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.7. Once the claimant had himself pleaded negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.7 as cause of the accident learned Tribunal could not have returned findings that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9. It was also submitted that Satpal (respondent No.7)-the truck driver did not step into the witness-box, hence adverse inference had to be necessarily drawn against him about his rash and negligent driving of the truck. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon certain judgments in support of his contention.

4(i)(c) Observations

I am afraid the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. Firstly, there is