(6) to Section 158 and sub section (4) to Section 166 have
been added. Section 158(6) provides that the Incharge of
the Police Station concerned has to submit a report about
the traffic accident to the Tribunal having the jurisdiction and
that report has to be treated as Claim Petition by the Tribunal
in terms of Section 166(4) of the Act. Thus, even filing of claim
petition is not mandatory for grant of compensation in terms
of the said amendment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.420 of 2008
Pronounced on: 04.09.2015
Sita Rani and others
Versus
The Managing Director, HRTC, and others
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
Citation;2016(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL) 14
This appeal is directed against the award, dated
21st February, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition
No.45 of 2005, titled Sita Rani and others vs. The Managing
Director, HRTC and others, whereby the Claim Petition filed by
the claimants came to be dismissed, (for short the impugned
award).
2. Facts, as pleaded in the Claim Petition, in brief,
are that on 18th October, 2004, the deceased, was coming
from Delhi to Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. in his own car bearing
No.DL-8CJ-8576, being driven by claimant No.3 (son of the
deceased). When the said Car reached at Gutkar, a bus
bearing No.HP-33-3921, belonging to Himachal Road
Transport Corporation, (for short, HRTC), being driven by its
driver, namely, Jai Ram, rashly and negligently, hit the said
car, resulting into injuries to the deceased, who was taken to
Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where he succumbed to the said
injuries. Thus, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming
compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs.
3. Respondents, including the insurer of the vehicle in
which the deceased was traveling (respondent No.4 in the
Claim Petition), resisted the claim petition and filed the
replies.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were settled:
“1. Whether the respondent No.3 was driving the
bus bearing No.HP-33-3921 at 9:30 am at place
Gutkar, District Mandi, H.P. in a rash and negligent
manner resulting in death of Bhushan Lal as
alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners
are entitled for compensation, if so as to what
amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the maruti
car No.DL-8 CJ-8576. If so, its effect? OPR
4. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties, as alleged? OPR
5. Whether the petition is not legally maintainable
as alleged? OPR (1 to 3).
6. Whether the driver of the maruti car was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of accident as alleged? OPR (4).
7. Relief.”
5. Parties led their evidence and the Tribunal
dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that that Claimant
No.3, son of the deceased, was driving the Car rashly and
negligently and had caused the accident.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the record.
7. In the Claim Petition, the claimants have averred
that the driver of the bus, namely, Jai Ram (respondent No.3),
was driving the bus rashly and negligently and had caused
the accident. However, FIR was lodged against Claimant
No.3, who was driving the car at the relevant point of time
and it was prima facie proved that the driver of the bus had
not driven the bus rashly and negligently. On the contrary, it
was prima facie proved that the accident was the outcome
of rash and negligent driving of Claimant No.3. The Tribunal
after going through the insurance policy of the offending Car
has held that since the deceased was traveling in the
offending Car, therefore, in terms of the insurance policy, his
risk was not covered.
8. The aim and object of the provisions contained in
Chapters X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short,
the Act), is that, while granting compensation under the Act
to the victims of a vehicular accident, strict proof is not
required. Even vague pleadings cannot be made a ground
for dismissing a claim petition.
9. The Act has gone a sea change and sub section
(6) to Section 158 and sub section (4) to Section 166 have
been added. Section 158(6) provides that the Incharge of
the Police Station concerned has to submit a report about
the traffic accident to the Tribunal having the jurisdiction and
that report has to be treated as Claim Petition by the Tribunal
in terms of Section 166(4) of the Act. Thus, even filing of claim
petition is not mandatory for grant of compensation in terms
of the said amendment.
10. It is proved that the deceased, namely, Bhushan
Lal, became victim of the vehicular accident, which was
caused by claimant No.3, while driving the car in
question, in which the insured (deceased) was traveling
alongwith his family. Thus, claimants No.1 and 2, being the
widow and the daughter, are entitled to compensation
because they have lost source of dependency. However, it
can be held that the son of the deceased i.e. Claimant No.3,
who caused the accident, may not be entitled to
compensation, but that will not deprive the widow and the
daughter from reaping the fruits of the social legislation,
which is aimed at to provide relief to the victims of the
vehicular accidents, enabling them to receive the
compensation.
11. The insurance policy of the Car in question was
not on the file. Ms.Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for the
insurer, produced a copy of the insurance policy, a perusal of
which shows that the offending car was having the sitting
capacity of four persons. The risk of third party and four
persons i.e. driver, owner and other two persons was covered.
The insured was traveling in the vehicle at the time of
accident and the driver was his son. Thus, the risk of both was
covered in terms of the insurance policy, in which it is
recorded that the risk of owner-driver is covered. Even, as per
the insurance policy, the sitting capacity of the vehicle has
been mentioned as four, meaning thereby that the driver and
three other occupants were covered in terms of the policy.
Thus, how it can be held and said that the claimants, at least
Claimants No.1 and 2, are not entitled to compensation.
12. Keeping in view the discussion made by the
Tribunal in the impugned award read with the discussion
made hereinabove, it is held that the deceased became the
victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the
driver, namely, Tarun Rana, while driving the Car rashly and
negligently. The claimants have pleaded in the Claim Petition
that the deceased was earning Rs.17,000/- per month and
was the only source of income, at least for claimants No.1
and 2 i.e. the widow and the daughter.
13. However, as per the policy, the risk of the owner
and driver is covered for Rs.2.00 lacs. Thus, I deem it proper to
award Rs.2.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 6% from the
date of the impugned award i.e. from 21st February, 2008, till
final realization, in favour of Claimants No.1 and 2 and saddle
the insurer i.e. respondent No.4 with the liability. The insurer is
directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of six
weeks from today and on deposit, the same be released in
favour of Claimants No.1 and 2 in equal shares.
14. The impugned award is set aside and the claim
petition is granted, as indicated above.
September 04, 2015 ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
No comments:
Post a Comment