FAO No. 310 of 2012. Case: Darshan Kaur and Ors. Vs Vidya Thakur and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | FAO No. 310 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: N.S. Chandel, Advocate and For Respondents: Sudhir Thakur and Anirudh Sharma, Advocates |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 173; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 158, 158(6), 166 |
| Judgement Date | December 30, 2016 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
-
Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award, dated 12th April, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 24-S/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Vidya Thakur & others versus Shri Raj Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 11,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the appellants/owner and driver were saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned award').
-
The claimants have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far the same relates to them.
-
The owner and driver have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
-
Learned Counsel for the appellants/owner and driver argued that the accident was not caused by driver, namely, Raj Kumar and prayed that the impugned award be set aside.
-
The argument is mis-conceived and devoid of any force for the following reasons.
-
The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of ` 25,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the said petition.
-
Precisely, the case of the claimants was that on 21.04.2008, at about 5.50 a.m., driver, namely, Raj Kumar, had driven vehicle-truck bearing registration No. HP-11-B-0299, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which deceased Nardev Singh Thakur sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.
-
The respondents filed replies.
-
Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:
1. Whether deceased expired in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the vehicle of respondent No. 2?.....OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom?....OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?....OPR
3-A. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?....OPR
4. Relief.
-
The parties led evidence.
-
The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver, namely, Raj Kumar, caused the accident, while driving the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant point of time, in which deceased Nardev Singh Thakur lost his life.
Issue No. 1.
-
The claimants have examined HHC...
To continue reading
Request your trial