SHRI BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (herein after referred to as "the Act"), lays challenge to award dtd. 16/3/2019, passed by the learned MACT-III, Shimla camp at Rohru, HP, in MAC case No. 11-R/2 of 2017, titled Balma Devi and others v. Sharda Devi and Ors, whereby the learned Tribunal below while allowing the claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Act, having been filed by the respondents-claimants No. 1 and 2 (in short "the claimants"), saddled the Appellant-Insurance Company with liability to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.13,30,000.00 a/w interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

(2.) Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed petition under Sec. 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000.00 alongwith statutory interest from the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 being owner and driver on account of death of Sh. Hem Raj, being his legal heirs. Claimants claimed that on 13/2/2017, deceased Hemraj was going to Tikkar in a vehicle bearing registration No.HP-10A-9256 alongwith other occupants and at that relevant time vehicle was being driven by respondent No.5, Sanjeev Kumar. Unfortunately, aforesaid vehicle met with an accident, as a consequence of which, all the occupants got injured, but person named Hem raj died on the spot. Factum with regard to accident came to be reported to the police vide FIR No. 0012 of 2017 dtd. 13/2/2017, whereafter case under Sec. 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC was registered against respondent No.5. Claimants claimed that at the time of the accident, deceased Hem Raj was 42 years old and he being mason and plumber used to earn sum of Rs.20,000.00 per month.

(3.) Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted by the Appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents No. 4 and 5, who, in their reply, though nowhere disputed the factum with regard to the accident, but claimed that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, which was coming from Tikkar side. Appellant-Insurance company claimed that since vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and driver of the vehicle was not holding effective and valid licence, it cannot be fastened with the liability to indemnify the insured.