Ranjit Singh Datta vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 1467 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No. 25
        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                                             MA No. 36/2018
                                             IA No. 1/2018

Ranjit Singh Datta                                 .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
                      Through: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate
                 Vs

                                                             ..... Respondent(s)
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. and ors.
                      Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                              ORDER (ORAL)

1. This appeal arises out of judgment/award dated 15.11.2017 passed by the

learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal) in case File No. 51/Claim,

titled, 'Punjaboo Ram V/s Ashok Kumar and ors', whereby the respondent

No. 1-Insurance company has been permitted to recover the awarded

amount from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. appellant herein after

satisfying the award passed in favour of the claimant (respondent No. 2).

2. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle on the

ground that the learned Tribunal was not correct in permitting the

Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from him, particularly

when the claimant specifically pleaded in the claim petition that he was

working as a helper/labourer for loading and unloading purposes and the

claimant proved the same by leading cogent evidence.

3. Mr. Sachin Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

once the claimant/respondent No. 2 had pleaded and proved the factum of

his working as a helper for the operation of load carrier, the Tribunal

could not have permitted respondent No. 1- Insurance Company to

recover the amount awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 2

from the owner of the vehicle after paying the same to

claimant/respondent No. 2.

4. Per contra, Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-

Insurance company has submitted that the claimant was a gratuitous

passenger and his risk was not covered, therefore, the learned Tribunal

was correct in permitting the respondent No. 1 to make payment of

awarded amount in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 2 and thereafter

recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. From the record, it transpires that in the petition filed by the

claimant/respondent No. 2 for grant of compensation on account of

injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident that took place on

13.06.2014 at Bain Nall near Mansar, Tehsil Udhampur at about 09:30

PM, it was also pleaded by the claimant that he was working as a labourer

by profession and was engaged by the owner of the offending vehicle for

loading and unloading purposes. The appellant, respondent No. 1 and

respondent No. 3 were put to notice. The appellant filed the response,

pleading therein that no accident was caused with the vehicle in question

and if any accident took place, it was due to negligence of the claimant

i.e. respondent No. 2, himself. Respondent No. 1-Insurance company has

also filed the response, thereby admitting the insurance of the offending

vehicle, however denied its liability to indemnify the owner.

7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed:-

(1) Whether the petitioner Punjaboo sustained grievous injuries in a RTA caused on 14.06.2014 at Bain Nall near Mansar at about 9:30 Pm on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK14C-3591 by its driver respondent no. 1 resulting into permanent disablement? OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what effect and from whom? OPP. (3) Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and also was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, to what effect? OPR (4) Relief. OP Parties

8. The claimant/respondent No. 2 besides examining himself had also

examined PW Gurdass and PW Dr. Kulwant Shekhar in respect of his

claim. The appellant also appeared as a witness, whereas the respondent

No. 1- Insurance Company examined RW Sanjay Kumar (official from

ARTO, Udhampur). After perusing the evidence, the learned Tribunal

passed the award impugned.

9. The issue raised in the present appeal is only as to whether the Tribunal

was right in its approach to permit the respondent No. 1 to recover the

awarded amount from the owner of the offending vehicle after paying the

same to respondent No. 2/claimant. In order to appreciate this

controversy, this Court deems it proper to have brief resume of evidence

led by the parties.

10. From the statement of Punjaboo Ram-claimant, it is evident that he had

categorically stated that he was employed as a labourer in the offending

vehicle and was getting Rs. 5000/- as monthly remuneration. Further

perusal of the statement of the appellant reveals that he too admitted that

the claimant was under his employment and was being paid Rs. 2000/- per

month. From the evidence brought on record, it is proved that the claimant

i.e. respondent No. 2 was working as a labourer with the offending

vehicle. A perusal of the policy schedule reveals that the Insurance

Company has received a premium of Rs. 50/- for a person in connection

with operation of the offending vehicle.

11. Once the Tribunal returned a finding that the claimant was working as a

labourer by occupation after appreciating the evidence, there cannot be

any reason to disbelieve the evidence led by the claimant/respondent No.

2, duly corroborated by the appellant herein that he was employed with

the appellant as a labourer for the purpose of operating the offending

vehicle.

12. In view of what has been stated and discussed above, the award dated

15.11.2017 is modified to the extent that liberty granted to the respondent

No. 1 to recover the awarded amount from the appellant is deleted. The

amount deposited as pre requisite for filing the appeal be released in

favour of the appellant.

13. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

Jammu 02.08.2023 Neha-II Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No