Himachal Pradesh Court June 1996 Judgments

Himachal Pradesh Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Kashma Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1997ACJ910

R.L. Khurana, J.1. The abovementioned first appeal and cross-objections arise out of the award dated 6.8.1984 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Solan and Sirmour Districts at Nahan and are being disposed of together by this single judgment.2. Bus bearing No. HPA 1207 belonging to the appellant Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation and which was being driven at the relevant time by the driver Narayan Dass met with an accident on 2.11.1983 near village Dingri at about 8.15 a.m. In the said accident one Lavinder Singh, son of Mata Ram, a passenger of the said bus was killed. A number of other passengers also sustained injuries.3. A petition under Section 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was filed by the parents, widow and minor children of the deceased Lavinder Singh, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of the said deceased. It was pleaded that the accident had occurred as a result of rash and ne...

Bhagesh Datt Sharma and ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industri ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1270HP

Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed that they may be held entitled to pay scale of Rs. 570 -1080 and allowances as Junior Assistants and pay scale or Rs. 400 - 600 and the allowances for the period they had worked as Clerks, which is being paid to the corresponding staff of employees in the head office as well as other units of M/s. Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla, Respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the writ petition, T. V. Factory Chambaghat, District Solan, where the petitioners were employed, was transferred to Himachal Pradesh State Electronic Development Corporation, which was added as party Respondent No. 3, subject to just exceptions, by order dated June 6, 1991 passed in C. M. P. No. 450 of 1991. It is not in dispute, that both Respondents No. 1 and 3 are the companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and fully owned by the...

Bishan Dass and ors. Vs. New Prem Bus Service and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This court proposes to dispose of these three appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 214, 215 and 216 of 1984] by a common judgment as these pertain to the same accident and also arisen out of the common judgment dated 20.8.1984 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kangra Division at Dharamshala. In the accident in question jeep No. HIL 4824 and bus No. HPK 1589 were involved. Bus No. HPK 1589 was owned by New Prem Bus Service, the respondent No. 1 and driven by Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, at the time of accident. It was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 3. The jeep No. HIL 4824 was owned by one of the claimants, Bishan Dass and was being driven by Kishori Lal at the time of accident.2. In the accident Bishan Dass and his daughter Sharda Devi, claimants, received injuries whereas Sheela Devi, wife of Bishan Dass died on the spot. Bishan Dass filed claim petition M.A.C.T. No. 7 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 as the compensation. Sharda...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhag Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1998ACJ235

Arun K. Goel, J.1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the four appeals, namely, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhag Devi, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 75 of 1994; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deva Jean, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 76 of 1994; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sewati Devi, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 78 of 1994; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leela Bhagati alias Leelawati, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 79 of 1994; since they have arisen out of the same accident. During the course of arguments, awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla, were attacked by the appellant company on identical grounds, viz., that the insurance company did not charge any premium from the owner of the vehicle and there is no evidence on record to show that the passengers/injured were travelling in the vehicle along with their goods, which was a goods vehicle adapted and built for carriage of goods, none of such persons travelling in the said vehicle was carrying goods and there is no positive evidence to ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annu Alias Vishal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1997ACJ1432

R.L. Khurana, J.1. The abovenoted two appeals arise out of the award dated 29.3.1985 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan and Sirmour Districts, camp at Solan.2. The matrix of the case out of which the present appeals have arisen may be stated thus. On 25.7.1979 in the evening at Kumarhatti within the local limits of jurisdiction of Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, an accident took place wherein a child of about 4 1/2 years of age was crushed by truck bearing No. HPS 1967. The said truck while coming from Kalka side and proceeding towards Shimla had hit the child from behind. The said child Annu alias Vishal had sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body which resulted in amputation of left aim (above elbow) and left leg (through left hip joint). The permanent disability in respect of the left leg and left arm due to amputation was assessed at 95 per cent and 80 per cent respectively.3. The injured child through his father and natural guardian, and hi...

Dharam Chand and ors. and Amarnath Vs. P.O., Labour Court and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ318HP

R.L. Khurana, J. 1. The common question involved in the above noted three writ petitions is :--'Whether the Central Government or the State Government is the 'Appropriate Government' for the purpose of making the reference under Section 10, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 concerning the dispute between the respondent Corporation and its workmen'.2. The detailed facts of the present cases need not be reproduced by us as they are not relevant for the purpose of controversy involved. Suffice to say that the petitioners are working in various capacities under the respondent Corporation in their Baira Siul project and Chamera Project. Certain disputes arose between the respondent Corporation and its workmen, namely, the petitioners. The State Government vide three separate notifications, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for; adjudication. During the course of pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent C...