IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 4209 of 2013 Reserved on: 31.03.2026 Date of decision: 17.04.2026 _________________________________H_______________

OIC Ltd. …..Appellant Versus Laxmi Devi & Ors. .…Respondents _________________________o_______________________

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sus hil Kukreja, Judge.

1 Whether approved for rep t orting?

___________________r_____________________________

For the appellant:uMr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

For the respoondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for, respondents No. 1 to 6.

Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 & 8.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 10-MAC/2 of 2010, whereby the claim petition was allowed with costs and the petitioners were awarded

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

compensation of Rs. 11,26,280/-, with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of filing the pPetition till payment to be made by respondent No. 1, .Manga Ram (driver of the offending vehicle) & respondent No 2, Pritam Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), jointly and severally. However, respondent No. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to indemnify the award.

2. The brief facts of the case, as set up by the petitioners are that on 27.03.2009, Rajinder Kumar (since deceased) was travelling in Mahindra Pick-up bearing registration No. HP-18A-3917, as owner of the goods and hwhen the aforesaid vehicle reached near Dhanoi Hotel on gDadahu-Sangrah Road, the same met with an accident on iaccount of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver, as a result of which Rajinder Kumar sustained serious injuries and died in PGI, Chandigarh. According, to the petitioners, prior to accident, the deceased was working as a milk vendor and agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 350/- to 400/- per day by selling milk and Rs. 60,000/- per season from agriculture.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. driver aPnd owner of the offending vehicle, in their reply, a.dmitted that deceased Rajinder Kumar was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and died in the accident. However, it was denied that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. According to them, the accident had occurred due to mechanical failure.

4. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company in its reply, contested the petition on the ground that deceased Rajinder Kumar was unauthorized passenger in the goods hvehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not gpossessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of ithe accident and the offending vehicle was also being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has also been stated in the reply that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 & 2.

5. In rejoinder, contents of the reply have been denied and that of the petition have been re-asserted.

6. On pleadings of the parties, the followPing issues were framed on 05.04.2011:- .

“1. Whether Rajender Kumar died in the motor vehicles accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 1? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is determined in the affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, at the relevant time, if so, its effect? OPR-3

4. Whether the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance poolicy? OPR-3

5. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with Crespondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3

6. Relief.”

7. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned