IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1.FAO.No. 346 of 2006. 2.FAO.No.378 of 2006. Date of Decision:20.5.2011. _______________________________________________ 1.FAO.No. 346 of 2006. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant. Vs. Ram Chand and another. ….Respondents. For the appellant: :Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondent-1. :Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.2. :Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. 2. FAO.No. 378 of 2006. Inder Mohan Soni …Appellant. Vs. Ram Chand and another. …Respondents. For the appellant: :Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For Respondent-1. :Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.2. :Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Both these appeals arise out of the same accident and a common judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala. Before proceeding in the case further, I may notice that out of the same accident, three claim petitions were instituted. Santosh Devi and others are the dependants of the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment. yes 2 deceased Rachpal Singh who died in the accident, had preferred Petition M.A.C.P.No. 64-K/2002 which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 16.9.2008 allowing the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 6,76,000/- along with interest etc. as detailed in the judgment. No appeal or other proceedings have been preferred against this judgment. 2. Second petition (M.A.C.P.No. 66-K/2003) was filed by petitioner-Pritam Chand on 16.12.2003 which was decided on 16.9.2008. Pritam Chand sustained injuries in the accident as he was the pillion rider of the scooter. In this case also, the petition was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- along with interest etc. was awarded to him. In both these cases, the issue of violation of the insurance policy was raised by the Insurance Company as a triable issue. In Santosh Devi’s case, three issues were framed: 1. Whether the terms of the policy was violated and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount, as alleged? …OPR. 2. Whether the driver/respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay this amount of compensation? …OPR. 3. Whether the owner/respondent No.2 was not diligent to check the driving licence of the driver and so the insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation? …OPR-3. 3. The finding on these issues was against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal holds “18 The respondents are held liable to pay the compensation as being joint and several liability to be indemnify by the insurer of the offending vehicle.” 3 4. Similarly, in Pritam Chand’s case, five issues were framed on the pleadings of the Insurance Company which sought to avoid its liability. 1. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?. ..OPR. 2. Whether the accident is as a result of rash and negligent driving of the scooter as alleged?. …OPR. 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was driven in-violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged?. …OPR. 4. Whether the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurer of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, as alleged? … OPR. 5. Whether the petition is collusive between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and 2, as alleged? …OPR. 5. These issues were also found against the respondents. Thereafter the Tribunal directed: “The respondents are held liable to pay the compensation as being joint and several liability to be indemnify by the insurer of the offending vehicle.” 6. Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel submits that no appeal has been filed against the decision in Pritam Chand’s case also. 7. In the third case No. 31-K-U/05/03 filed by Ram Chand decided on 27.7.2006, these two appeals have been preferred, one by the Insurance Company and the second by the owner Sh.Inder Mohan Soni. The accident in question, subject matter of this petition (as also of the two petitions supra) is the same. The motor vehicles involved are also the same. It took place on 10.11.2001 at around 4.30 p.m. when Ram Chand petitioner-claimant was proceeding to Piasa on scooter bearing No. HIK-2054 when a Van/Jeep bearing No. HP-55- 4550 came from the opposite side and struck the scooter. The 4 allegations were that the Jeep was being driven by driver Sharwan Kumar (who later on died during the pendency of the claim petition) came from the opposite side and dashed into the scooter. Resultantly, Rachpal Singh, who was the pillion rider of the scooter, sustained fatal injuries. Pritam Chand and Ram Chand (present respondent herein) sustained injuries. On the evidence before the learned Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 5,62,600/- along with interest was awarded to Ram Chand for the serious injuries sustained by him on the evidence as certified by the disability certificate Ext.PW1/A describing the injuries that the respondent-claimant had lost his right leg and right arm in the accident. The settled issues before the Tribunal were with respect to the factum of the accident, entitlement of the petitioner to compensation and the fact as to whether the deceased driver was in possession of a valid driving license or not. Learned Tribunal, holds that there was no valid driving license and in this eventuality, the amount was ordered to be recovered first from the Insurance Company and thereafter from the owner Inder Mohan Soni. 8. Adverting to the two appeals which have now been instituted one by the Insurance Company (FAO.No. 346 of 2006) and the other by the owner (FAO.No. 378 of 2006), the primary point urged is with respect to the validity of the driving license of the offending vehicle which has not been held to be genuine. In the second appeal preferred by the owner-Inder Mohan Soni (FAO.No. 378 of 2006), the findings were assailed on the ground that the license in fact, is genuine 9. Learned counsel Mr. Suneet Goel appearing in FAO.No. 378 of 2006 submits that in view of the two awards earlier noticed 5 above, in which the same driver/claimants and same vehicles were involved and have been decided at a later point of time in the year 2008 with issues absolutely identical to the present case. In so far as they related to the validity of the driving license and violation of the Insurance police, there is a categoric finding of the Tribunal that the driving license was genuine. These findings have not been challenged. The subsequent awards have been made on material in addition to that which was produced before the Tribunal in the present case out of which the present appeals arise. This Court is confronted with a strange situation. Three cases instituted before the Tribunal one disposed of at an earlier point of time, two at a later point of time involving the same accident, same vehicles and the same set of facts except the quantum which has claimed, differ on the important question of liability of the Insurance Company, the fact whether the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license in violation of the Insurance policy and as to whether the proceedings were conclusive or not. The award which is later in point of time, refuted all these pleas on the grounds as urged by the Insurance Company. While doing so the learned Tribunal has considered in detail the evidence on record. 10. It is also not disputed before me that the two awards noticed above have not been challenged and the findings, which have been arrived at have attained finality and if reversed in these appeals would obviously have the effect of setting aside those judgments. 11. I must express my surprise in the manner in which the case has been conducted by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. Having accepted the verdict in two of the cases 6 arising from the same accident namely, Santosh Devi and others and Pritam Chand, it would not be in the interest of justice to upset any of the findings in the present appeal preferred by the Insurance Company more especially when the issue of driving license has been discussed threadbare on the evidence and additional material proved on the record of those cases. On the question of a valid driving license, all that I need say is that the subsequent judgments hold that the driver was in possession of valid driving license. 12. In order to avoid a conflict of decisions, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed as the points urged herein even on the permission granted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act have already been adjudicated in the two cases supra. FAO. No. 346 of 2006 is dismissed. So far as the appeal FAO. No.378 of 2006 preferred by the owner is concerned, it is allowed. The liability is held to be that of the Insurance Company. In case, I pass any other order in this appeal, it would upset the two judgments which have already attained finality and it would not be in the interest of justice to come to a different finding. Copies of both the judgments have been placed on record of the files. 13. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 20, 2011(R)