IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 261/2007 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant. Vs. Shivcharan and others .. Respondents. With A.O. No. 262/2007 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant. Vs. Hemraj and others .. Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Siddharth Shah, learned counsel for respondent M/s Bhargava Motors. Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for claimants/respondents. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) As both these appears arise out the same accident, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- A.O. No. 261/2007 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 8-3-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 45/2005, Shivcharan and another Vs. M/s Idea For Life and others, in which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- as compensation against the United India Insurance Company along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, in lieu of death of Har Prasad in motor accident. 3- A.O. No. 262/2007 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 8-3-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 44/2005, Hemraj Vs. M/s Idea For Life and others, in which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,307/- as compensation against the United 2 India Insurance Company along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, in lieu of injuries sustained by Hemraj in motor accident. 4- Brief facts of the case are that On 28-12-2004 at about 8.30 P.M. the injured Hemraj and deceased Har Prasad were returning to village Maheshpura along with their Thelas after selling the goods, and when they reached near village Maheshpura on Bazpur-Kashipur Motor Marg, suddenly Isher Canter bearing chassis No. 11 EC-4 E- 106068 and Engine No. E-483 ND 4-E- 103804, came there from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed both these persons, due to which Hemraj sustained grievous injuries, whereas Har Prasad succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by one Suresh at P.S. Bazpur. Injured Hemraj was admitted in District Hospital, Moradabad and still he is under treatment. According to Hemraj he has spent about Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. Therefore claim petitions were filed for compensation before the tribunal concerned. 5- The opposite party No.1, did not contest the claim petitions in spite of sufficient service of notice therefore the petitions were heard exparte against it. 6- The opposite party No.2, owner of the offending vehicle contested both the petitions and alleged that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligence of the driver. However, it has alleged that the driver was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company, therefore, the liability, if any, to pay the compensation is upon the shoulder of the insurance company. 3 7- The learned tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed the relevant issues in the claim petitions. Thereafter parties led evidence in support of their cases. 8- The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire material available on record, decreed the claim petitions. 9- Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and awards, the United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeals before this Court. 10- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11- As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the tribunal has dealt with this point on issue no.1. Hemraj injured has appeared in the witness box and deposed that the offending Isher Canter dashed with him and deceased Har Prasad on wrong side due to which he sustained grievous injuries and Har Prasad succumbed to the injuries. D.W.2, Ganesh Dutt Pandey is the pairokar of opposite party No.2, M/s Bhargava Motors. This witness has admitted that the accident took place with the vehicle Isher Canter and the vehicle was got released by M/s Bhargava Motors from the Court. F.I.R. of the accident was lodged on the date of the accident in which it has specifically been mentioned that the driver of the Isher Canter in question has dashed the deceased and the injured in a negligent manner. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of Isher Canter in 4 question. I do not find any ground to interfere in the above finding recorded by the tribunal. 12- Learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant has submitted that the Isher Canter involved in the accident was not covered by the cover note of the United India Insurance Company, therefore, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. 13- I do not find any force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned tribunal has dealt with this point on issue No.2. D.W.1, Anand Singh Bisht, Senior Assistant of Insurance Company has deposed that the New Isher Ambulance was insured with United India Insurance Company Muni- ki-Reti Branch, Rishikesh for the period 24.12.2004 to 23.12.2005 and it was made effective from the date of taking delivery by the opposite party no.1. D.W.2, Ganesh Dutt, pairokar of M/S Bhargava Motors has deposed in his cross-examination that at the time of accident the canter in question was with M/S Bhargava Motors and the same was got released from Court by M/S Bhargava Motors. The surveyor of the insurance company has mentioned the chassis No. 11-EC-4E- 106068 and Engine No. E-483 ND-4E- 103804 in his report. The learned tribunal has discussed this point in detail and has arrived at the conclusion that the Isher Canter involved in the accident was bearing chassis No. 11-EC-4E-106068 and Engine No. E-483 ND-4E- 103804 and it was insured with United India Insurance Company with cover note No. 967256 for the period 24.12.2004 to 23.12.2005. The insurance company could not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence before the tribunal that the Isher Canter involved in the accident was another 5 Canter than the Isher Canter bearing chassis No. 11-EC- 4E-106068 and Engine No. E-483 ND-4E- 103804, which was insured with United India Insurance Company/appellant under cover note no. 967256. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the tribunal on this point. 14- As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, the same is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. 15- For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any force in both the appeals filed by the insurance company and the same are liable to be dismissed. 16- Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and awards are hereby confirmed. 17- Let the statutory amount deposited by the insurance company, before this court, at the time of filing of the appeals, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. 18- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 262/2007. Dated: 13-07-2009 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6