Dismissed

Hrtc v. Sudha Thakur

Himachal Pradesh HC6 May 2016FAO/78/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal appeal against a compensation award of Rs.5,88,000. The court found the claim petition maintainable and upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence despite regarding the awarded amount as meager.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Registry directed to release the awarded amount of Rs.5,88,000 to claimants.

Hrtc Vs Sudha Thakur — Insurance | Himachal Pradesh HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

FAO (MVA) No. 78 of 2010. Date of decision: 6^th May, 2016

¶3

H.R.T.C. Shimla and another . …..Appellants. Versus Smt. Sudha Thakur 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 appellants: Mr. Jagdish Thakur with Ms. Jamna Pathik, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Neeraj Guupta, Advocate, for respondent No.8. Nemo for other respondents.

¶8

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral)

¶9

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.10.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 33 of 2007, titled Smt. Sudha Thakur and another versus Sh. Sunil Kumar and others , for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,88,000/-, alongwith interest @ 8% per annum with

¶10

Rs.3000 as costs/- was awarded in favour of the

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short.

¶14

Insured, driver and claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them.

¶15

The appellants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

¶16

Claimants had claimed the compensation

¶17

to the tune of Rs.20 lacs, as per the break-ups, given in the claim petition, which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be

¶18

framed.

¶19

“(i) Whether the deceased Shamsher Singh died due to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.?OPP

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondents 4 and 5? OPR

¶22

(iv) Whether the vehicle was being plied at the time of accident against the terms of the insurance policy and respondent No. 5 is not liable to indemnify respondent No. 4 ? OPR.

¶23

(v) Relief. “

¶24

¶25

5. Claimants examined HHC Rattan Pal as

¶26

PW1, Gulzar Chand as PW2, Dr. Piyush Kapila as PW4 and claimant herself appeared as PW3 in the witness-box.

¶27

On the other hand, driver Sunil Kumar respondent No. 6 herein appeared as RW1 in the

¶28

witness-box.

¶29

The claimants have led evidence, oral as well as documentary, which do disclose that the driver has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident and there is no rebuttal to the same. The insurer has not questioned the findings returned on issue No.1. Thus, the findings returned on this issue are upheld.

¶30

Before I deal with issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3 and 4 at the first instance.

¶31

Issue No.3. It was for the

¶32

respondents/appellants herein to lead evidence, have not led any evidence. Thus have failed to discharge the onus. However, I have gone through the evidence on

¶33

¶34

record. The claim petition is maintainable on the face of it. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

¶35

Issue No.4. The respondents have not led any evidence thus, have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 4 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

¶36

The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 12. I have gone through the discussion made by the Tribunal in paras 9 to 11 of the impugned award. The amount awarded appears to be meager, on the face of it. The deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident. The income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/per month. The documents on the file do disclose that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal, after making deductions has held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune

¶37

of Rs.3500/- per month which is not legally correct. However, the claimants have not questioned the same

¶38

¶39

thus it is reluctantly maintained. 1/4^th was to be deducted, Keeping in view the 2^nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another , reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120 .

¶40

Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment 14. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. The Registry is also directed to convey this order to the claimants.

¶41

May 06, 2016. (cm Thakur)

¶42

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.

Hrtc v. Sudha Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrtc v. Sudha Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Singh Vs Pawan Kumar

Meera Devi Vs J.D.Verma

Sandeep Mahajan Vs Surjeet Singh

Brahm Parkash Vs Devki Devi

Sudesh Rani Vs Lajya Ram

Bhima Gupta Vs Bhim Singh Chauhan