Dismissed

United India Insurance v. Gaurav Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Nov 2014FAO/350/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Upholding the Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving and the owner's willful breach causing insurer liability, the Court confirmed the compensation amount and directed payment to claimants with a right of recovery against the owner.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned award was upheld. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount to the claimants, and the insurer is at liberty to lay a motion for recovery fro

United India Insurance Vs Gaurav Sharma — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

FAO (MVA) No. 350 of 2007 Date of decision: 21^st November, 2014.

¶3

United India Insurance Co. Nangal …..Appellant Versus Sh. Gaurav Sharma and others …Respondents

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ Yes.

¶7

For the appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶8

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶9

The Insurance Company has made a futile exercise by filing appeal, in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, questioning the impugned award dated 25.6.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Shimla in MACC No.21-S/2 of 2003, tilted Sh. Gaurav Sharma and others vs. Smt. Swaran Kaur and others , hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

¶10

The claimants had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The respondents in the claim petition, resisted

¶14

and contested the claim petition and following issues, on

¶15

the pleadings of the parties, came to the framed:

¶16

(i) Whether the death of Kewal Krishan took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck NO.HP20A-2423 by the respondent, Sukhdev? OPP

¶17

(ii) In case the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

¶18

(iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

¶19

(iv) Whether the petitioner himself was negligent and responsible for causing the accident? OPR

¶20

(v) Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition? OPR

¶21

(vi) Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPR (vii) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR

¶22

(viii) Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving license? OPR

¶23

(ix) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPR

¶24

(x) Relief.

¶25

The claimants, driver and owner have

¶26

examined the witnesses but the insurer has not led any evidence.

¶27

The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence

¶28

held that the claimants became victims of a vehicular accident, which was caused by driver, namely, Sukhdev, while driving offending truck bearing registration No.HP20A-2423, rashly and negligently on 13.8.2002, at 10.05 a.m. at place Stag Hotel, Parontha More near Kandaghat. The Tribunal also held that the claimants are

¶29

¶30

entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,90,780/- and saddled the insurer with the liability with right of recovery, on the ground that the owner has committed willful breach, in terms of Section149 of the Act, read with the Insurance Policy.

¶31

The claimants, driver and insured have not questioned the impugned award on any aground, thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them.

¶32

The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence. The insurer has not led any evidence, thus the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted.

¶33

I have gone through the record. The claimants have proved that driver Sukhdev had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. He has not questioned it, has attained finality. The findings recorded on issue No. 1 are upheld accordingly.

¶34

The impugned award is not excessive in any way and the same is upheld.

¶35

The Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that the owner has committed willful breach, which was not questioned by the owner/insured, has attained the finality against the insured.

¶36

Having said so, the appeal merits to be dismissed, accordingly it is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld.

¶37

¶38

The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. The insurer is at liberty to lay motion before the Tribunal for effecting recovery from the owner.

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. Send down the

¶40

record forthwith.

¶41

( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) November 21, 2014, Chief Justice. (cm Thakur)

United India Insurance v. Gaurav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance v. Gaurav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhiraj Sharma Vs Dola Mani

Oriental Insurance Co. Vs Sardaru

Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs Dinesh Kumari

New India Assurance Co. Vs Randeep Singh Rana

Nikku Vs Vishal Sharma

Randeep Singh Vs the New Shivalik Transport Co.