This Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation. Upholding the Tribunal's findings based on unchallenged documentary evidence of a valid license and genuine insurance policy, the Court ruled no award needed remand.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
FAO No. 151 of 2017
Decided on: 27.09.2023
United India Insurance Company Limited .…Appellant
Versus
Shubh Kali and others …Respondents Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. Jagjeet Singh Bagga, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has laid challenge to the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No117/2014 titled as Shubh Kali vs. Mahesh Kumar and others, dated 01.01.2016, in terms whereof the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant was partly allowed by the Tribunal in the following terms:
“26. In view of my discussion on the issues above, the petition is allowed with costs against the respondent No. 3
i.e. United India Insurance Company and the petitioner is
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
award a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 28.10.20214 till the payment is made. This amount includes the interim compensation, if any, awarded u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount shall be shared by the petitioners as under:-
Petitioner No. 1 Shubh Kali = 90% Petitioners No. 2 & 3 = 5% each
Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to records.”
3
that on 26.06.2014, deceased-Ramesh Chand, who was the husband of claimant No. 1 and the father of claimants No. 2 and 3, was on his way back to his house from village Abada Barana on his Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-72-4541, when his Motorcycle was hit by another Motorcycle bearing registration HP20B-8687, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Ramesh Chand received grievous injuries as a result of the accident and he lost his life. The claimants prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.
1. Whether deceased Ramesh Chand died on 6.8.2014 due to accident dated 26.6.2014 arising out of the use of motorcycle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration N,. HP-20B8687 by respondent No. 1 as alleged?
4
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so,to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of parties, as alleged? OPP
4. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable as alleged? OPR
5. Whether deceased Ramesh Chand as well as respondent No.1 Mahesh Kumar were not holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, if so, its effect? OPR-3.
6. Whether the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-208687 was being plied against the terms and conditions of insurance police as alleged? OPR3
7. Relief.”
Issue No. 1 : Yes
| Issue No. 2 | : Petitioners is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- from respondent No. 3. |
|---|---|
| Issue No. 3 | : No. |
| Issue No. 4 | : No. |
| Issue No. 5 | : No. |
5
Issue No. 6 : No.
Relief : Petition allowed as per operative part of award.”
6
fact, the findings of the learned Tribunal are substantiated from the record itself that (a) the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid driving licence which was duly exhibited on record as Ext. RW-1/B; (b) the Motorcycle in issue was duly insured in terms of the Insurance Policy Ext. RW-1/C; and (c) there was no violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy, as alleged by the Insurance Company. Due and valid Registration Certificate of the Motorcycle stood proved on record vide Ext. RW-1/D.
September 27, 2023 (narender)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding that the driver possessed a valid driving license was perverse given the un-rebutted evidence?
Whether the conclusion that there was no violation of insurance policy terms was adequately supported by the record?
United India Insurance Company Limited
Shubh Kali
Mahesh Kumar
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
