BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUSHILA
LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-105
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on September 20,2019

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
SUSHILA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - (1.)Instant appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'Act') lays challenge to Award dated 2.1.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in M.A.C. Petition No. 30-S/2 of 2011, whereby learned Tribunal below, while accepting the claim petition under S.166 of the Act having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4-claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants'), proceeded to award a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral charges alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till payment.
(2.)Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claimants filed a petition under S.166 of the Act, praying therein for compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 Lakh from the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent No. 5, jointly and severally on account of death of Manmohan Sharma alias Bunty. Allegedly on 27.9.2011, at about 6.30 am, Manmohan Sharma, was going towards Saproon from Sabzi Mandi, Solan. In the meantime, a Truck bearing registration No. HP-12C-9657, owned and being driven by respondent No.2, came in a high speed and hit Manmohan Sharma, who died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. FIR No. 231 of 2011 under Ss. 279, 338, 201 and 304A IPC was registered against respondent No.5 at Police Station, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Claimants claimed that the deceased was a brilliant and intelligent ITI diploma holder in electronics and had done short term courses like fitting and soldering, basic computer, digital electronics, basic measuring instruments, six months course of Module Inverter, voltage stabilizer and industrial drives, advance module repair and maintenance electronics test equipments and was a good electronics technician. Claimants further averred that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing private electrical work and besides that, deceased was also earning Rs.80,000/- per annum from agriculture work.
(3.)Respondent No.5 as well as appellant-Insurance Company refuted the aforesaid claim by way of separate replies. Respondent No. 5 being owner and driver of the offending vehicle specifically denied any rashness or negligence on his part, while driving the vehicle but both the respondents categorically admitted the factum with regard to registration of FIR at Police Station Sadar, Solan, against respondent No.5 with regard to the accident in question.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.