IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No._237 of 2004. Judgment reserved on: 3.11.2008 Date of decision: 7.11.2008 Roop Lal Saini and another ……Appellants Vs. Malka and another …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 31.5.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Mandi in Claim petition No.75 of 1998 whereby an amount of Rs.45,260/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization has been awarded in favour of respondent No.1 and against appellants No.1 and 2. The insurance company has been exonerated by the learned Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 on 11.3.1998 at about 3 PM was returning home and walking on the extreme left side of the road, scooter bearing No.HP-33-2570 came from Mandi side and was being driven by appellant No.2 in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the scooter lost control of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… scooter and hit respondent No.1, as a result of which she sustained injuries. She was removed to Zonal Hospital, Mandi where she remained admitted as indoor patient w.e.f. 11.3.1998 to 25.3.1998. The respondent No.1 filed claim petition, claiming Rs.5,00,000/- compensation under various head. 3. The appellants No.1 and 2 contested the petition, they took stand that the accident was not attributable to rash and negligent driving of appellant No.2. They pleaded that respondent No.1 of her own struck against the scooter. They ultimately submitted that in case it is found that respondent No.2 was rash and negligent while driving the scooter in that case also respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation as the scooter was insured with respondent No.3. 4. The respondent No.3 contested the petition by filing reply and denied the liability to pay any compensation on the ground that appellant No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It has been submitted that amount claimed is excessive. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,260/- along with 9% interest against appellants No. 1 and 2 and in favour of respondent No.1 as noticed above. The appeal has been filed by the owner and the person who was driving the scooter at the time of the accident. 5. I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record. None appeared for other respondents. Mr. Palsra has submitted that appellant No.2 was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The scooter was insured, therefore, liability, if any, is …3… of respondent No.3. He has also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material on record in retuning the findings that appellant No.2 was driving the scooter rashly and negligently at the time of accident. He has lastly submitted that in any case to begin with respondent No.3 insurer should pay the compensation and recover the amount so paid in accordance with law from appellants. I have considered the contentions of Mr. Palsra carefully. 6. Ex.RW-1/A is the Driving Licence which was issued on 21.3.1998 in favour of Vinod Kumar by Licensing Authority, Mandi which is valid from 21.3.1998 to 7.3.2015. This licence is valid for L.M.V ( Non-TPT). No other licence or document was pointed out by Mr. Palsra in support of his contention that on 11.3.1998 on the date of accident, appellant No.2 was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive scooter. It is thus clear that on 11.3.1998 at the time of accident appellant No.2 was not holding any driving licence to drive scooter. 7. The appellants No.1 and 2 in their reply have admitted the accident but they have also pleaded that cause of accident was not attributable to appellant No.2. The appellants No.1 and 2 have taken the stand that respondent No.1 of her own struck against the scooter and sustained injuries. PW-1 Malka Devi has stated that when she was retuning to her home the scooter hit her, as a result of which she sustained injuries and remained admitted in the hospital for about 15/16 days. She had spent about Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- on her treatment. She suffered 5% disability. PW-2 Harish Behl, …4… Medical Officer, Mandi has stated that Malka Devi was examined on 6.10.2001 by the Medical Board and he was also a member of the Medical Board. He proved disability certificate Ex.PW-2/A of respondent No.1, according to which she has suffered 5% permanent disability. 8. RW-1 Vinod Kumar has stated that on 11.3.1998 when he reached Lunapani he found one woman lying on the road, he stopped the scooter, in the meantime from the opposite side Prem Singh came in a vehicle and both of them took her for first aid at Lunapani and thereafter they took her to Mandi hospital. In cross- examination he has admitted that FIR Ex.PA was registered against him. The appellants No.1 and 2 in their reply have stated that respondent No.1 struck against the scooter which was being driven by appellant No.2. The statement of RW-1 Vinod Kumar before the Tribunal is in contradiction to the stand taken by appellants in their reply. RW-1 in his statement has stated that respondent No.1 was lying on the road when he reached Lunapani, he and Prem Singh took her for first aid initially at Lunapani and then to Mandi hospital. Prem Singh has not been examined. The appellant No.2 has admitted that FIR Ex.PA was registered against him. It is thus clear that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by appellant No.2 at the time of accident. 9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,260/- under various heads along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization in favour of respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out under which head the …5… compensation has been wrongly awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, keeping in view the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 and quantum of compensation awarded I am of the opinion that amount of compensation Rs.45,260/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to the respondent No.1 is just and equitable which requires no interference. The appellant No.2 was driving the scooter without licence. It is not a case of defective licence. In these circumstances, insurance company cannot be directed to deposit the compensation amount along interest at the first instance and then to recover the amount of compensation from appellants. The insurance company had no privity of contract with appellant No.2 who was driving the scooter at the time of accident without licence. The appellants have failed to make out any case that respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify appellant No.1. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge November 7, 2008 (sks)