Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sarita Kumari and Another - Respondents
FAO(MVA) No. 95 of 2021 a/w FAO (MVA) Nos. 96, 164 and 165 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 41 - Accident - Compensation - Driver lost his control over vehicle and it fell down and caused death of her, her mother and their children due to multiple injuries - Driver also died on spot - Claimant filed claim petitions claiming compensation – It is for plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some accident cases hardship is caused to plaintiff as true cause of accident is not known to him but is solely within knowledge of defendant, who caused it - Para 18.
Finding of the Court:
Evidence led by parties establishes on record beyond doubt that as regards father of claimant, there is sufficient evidence to show that he was travelling in vehicle as owner of goods and returning back to his native place with such goods - This is not only so established and duly proved by claimant in her statement, but also tested in cross examination conducted by owner of vehicle and such statement has not been shattered in cross-examination conducted by Insurance Company - However, as regards mother, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that she was travelling in vehicle as owner of the goods, rather, it appears that she was simply accompanying her husband while going back to their native village after father of claimant had hired vehicle - Since, this Court has already held that mother of claimant was not travelling in vehicle as owner of goods, therefore, she is entitled to compensation to be paid by owner of vehicle - Whereas, in case of father of claimant, she is held entitled to compensation to be paid by Insurance Company - Claimant is held entitled to modified award amount of Rs.23,63,000/- and Rs.22,30,000/-, respectively, plus interest at rate of 7% per annum.
Result: FAO allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, the same were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Aggrieved by the awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, Camp at Reckong Peo, (for short ‘Tribunal’) on 16.03.2019, the Insurance Company, on the one hand, has filed FAO (MVA) Nos. 95 and 96 of 2021 and, the claimant, on the other hand, has filed FAO (MVA) Nos. 164 and 165 of 2021 for enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. As per the claimant, on 10.04.2014, her father Punai Uraw, had hired a vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-25B-0775 from Lippa to Jangi for transportation of his box, bags and beddings. The vehicle in question was en route and at about 7.00 A.M. when reached near Village Jangi, Tehsil Moorang, District Kinnaur, H.P., the driver lost his control over the vehicle in question and it fell down in a ‘Dhank’ about 1200 metres from Lippa-Jangi link road to NH-5 and caused the death of her father Punai Uraw, her mother Vishni Devi and their children due to multiple injuries. The driver also died on the spot. The deceased Punai Uraw and Vishni Devi, were serving as ‘Beldars’ in H.P.P.W.D., Division Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. and were drawing salaries amounting to Rs.21,032/- and 16,061/-, respectively. An FIR bearing registration No. 7/2014 was registered with the police at Police Station, Pooh. The deceased were of the age of 42 and 38, respectively.
4. The claimant filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- and 40,00,000/-, respectively.
5. Since, respondent No.1 did not file any reply despite sufficient opportunities granted to him in this behalf, therefore, his right to file the same was struck off.
6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed reply wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-25B-0775 was being plied in breach of policy conditions, vehicle was being plied by its driver without effective driving licence and the deceased were travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers, were taken. The deceased were of the age of 42 and 38 years at the time of the accident and were employed as ‘Beldars’ with HPPWD, Kalpa. The vehicle was insured in the name of Devi Saran. The insurance policy was valid with effect from 06.09.2013 to 05.09.2014 and respondent-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured and the claimant had claimed an exaggerated amount of compensation. It was denied that the vehicle in question was hired by the deceased, his wife and children for loading their box, bags and beddings from village Lippa to Jangi.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal on 02.12.2016 framed the following issues in the claim petitions filed by the claimant :-
“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the death of father of the petitioner was the result of rashness and negligency on the part of the driver (since deceased) in driving the ill-fated vehicle, as alleged? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation in the sum of Rs.45,00,000/- along with interest from the respondents, jointly and severally, as alleged? OPP.
3. Whether the offending vehicle had been plied by respondent No.1 contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3.
4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1, as alleged? OPR-3.
5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR-3.
6. Relief.”
“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into the d
Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent piece of legislation. Certain guiding principles have evolved over years which form bedrock for evaluating evidence and determining compensation under Motor Vehicle....
The court considered the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses to determine the compensation. The court also held the insurer liable to indemnify the vehicle owner.
The claimant must establish negligence for a successful claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, and the Tribunal's reliance on insufficient evidence can lead to erroneous judgments.
In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants must prove the negligence of the driver and the involvement of the vehicle. However, the principle of res ipsa loquitur ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where it may not be possible for the claimant to discharge the burden of proving neg....
Claimants in motor vehicle accident cases must meet the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities, and strict evidence rules do not apply, allowing the invocation of the res ipsa loquitur p....
Compensation in motor accident claims is determined based on preponderance of probabilities, with emphasis on establishing negligence through witness testimony and recalibrating compensation accordin....
Insurance liability cannot be denied based solely on FIR claims; evidence shows claimants were standing on roadside, establishing negligence of the driver.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
