Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
The New India Assurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar and others - Respondents
FAO No. 4044 of 2013
Decided On : 27-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a road accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166, 173 - The court discussed the issues related to negligence in a road accident and the liability of the parties involved. The court analyzed the evidence and modified the award by exonerating one party and holding another party solely liable for the compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, The New India Assurance Company Limited, filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by Sandeep Kumar seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of one of the parties involved and modified the award by holding one party solely liable for the compensation.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation, validity of driving license, and the maintainability of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including the FIR, witness testimonies, and the lack of action by the party accused of negligence, to conclude that the accident was primarily due to the negligence of one party.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed partly, and the award was modified to hold one party solely liable for the compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Appellant-The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) against the award dated 30.03.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned MACT’) in MAC Petition No. 18 of 2009, titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. Vinod Kumar and others.
2. By way of award dated 30.03.2013, the learned MACT has allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 Sandeep Kumar under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and passed the following award:-
“33. In view of my discussion on the issues above, the petition is allowed with costs and the petitioner is awarded Rs.3,22,800/- (Rupees three Lac twenty two thousand eight hundred only) as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 29.02.2012, that is, the date when respondent No.3 Sunil Kumar was added as party to this petition, till the payment is made. This amount includes the interim compensation, if any, awarded to the petitioner under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount in question shall be paid by respondent No.2, that is, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Devpal Chowk Hamirpur, and respondent No.3 Sunil Kumar in equal shares. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file, after due completion, be consigned to Record Room.”
3. The parties, to the present lis, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned MACT.
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-
4.1. Petitioner Sandeep Kumar has filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a road side accident, involving vehicles No. HP-22-7287 and CH1A-6859 against the respondents being driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. HP-22-7287 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘first vehicle’) and owner-cum-driver of vehicle No. CH1A-6859 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘second vehicle’).
4.2. The claim petition has been filed against the owners and drivers of first vehicle, as well as, the second vehicle, as well as, insurer of the first vehicle. The petitioner has pleaded that on 12.01.2008, he was pillion rider on second vehicle being driven by respondent No.3. They had started for Pakka Bharo from village Matahani. When, they reached near Pakka Bharo at about 9.30 p.m., the first vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 came there from the opposite side. Both the vehicles collided with each other, due to which, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries in his right leg. According to him, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, as they did not care to avoid the accident.
4.3. It is his further case that, after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P., where, first aid was given to him and thereafter, doctor, on duty, had referred him to I.G.M.C. Shimla. He remained admit in I.G.M.C. Shimla from 13.01.2008 to 23.01.2008. In addition to this, the petitioner has also pleaded that he was also treated by the doctors of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.
4.4. The information with regard to the accident was given to Police Station, Hamirpur, where, FIR No. 13 of 2008, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered against respondent No.3. The petitioner has pleaded his age at the time of accident as 22 years and according to him, he was Mason by profession, as such, he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month.
4.5. It is further case of the petitioner that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment. Lastly, it has been pleaded that due to disability suffered by him, he is unable to do the masionary work. He has also pleaded about his bright past and bleak future.
5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow t
