* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.493/2006
Reserved on : 23rd January, 2009
% Date of decision: 28th January, 2009
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv.
versus
MUNESH DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CM No.7825/2006
1. The appellant has filed this application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing of this appeal. The notice of this application was issued to the respondents on 29 th May, 2006. Summons were not served on the respondents. However, respondents No.7 and 8 appeared through counsel on 1 st March, 2007 and, therefore, fresh notices were issued to respondents No.1 to 6. The service is still incomplete on respondents No.1 to 6.
2. On 4th September, 2008, counsel for the appellant was asked to verify whether an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal or not. MAC.APP.No.493-2006 Page 1 of 4
3. LCR shows that on 18th August, 2005, the learned Trial Court passed an order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act permitting the appellant to contest the case on merits.
4. This appeal is pending for hearing on condonation of delay application for more than 2 ½ years. Though the notice has been issued on this application, I am of the view that since the averments made for condonation of delay relate to the internal delay in the office of the appellant in obtaining the copy of the impugned order, legal opinion from the attending lawyer, the decision by the competent authority in the regional office and thereafter, again the legal opinion by the competent authority, this application can be disposed of without hearing the respondents.
5. The appellant has sufficiently explained the delay of 39 days which has occurred due to the internal delays in the administration and time taken in decision to file the appeal. I, therefore, hereby condone the delay of 39 days in filing of this appeal.
6. CM stands disposed of.
MAC.APP.No.493/2006
1. This case relates to the death of Rohtash Kumar aged 44 years in a motor accident on 15th August, 2003. The deceased was driving TATA Indica car No.DL-9CG-3507 while going from Delhi to Shimla when it met with an accident with a truck No.HP-51-0437 near Shimla. The learned Tribunal has MAC.APP.No.493-2006 Page 2 of 4 awarded total compensation of Rs.19,47,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased.
2. There is no dispute of there being a valid insurance. There is also no dispute of a valid driving licence or breach of any policy by the insured. The appellant has also not challenged the computation of compensation. The only ground on which the appeal has been filed is that the deceased was rashly and negligently driving the TATA Indica car at a very high speed and, therefore, he lost control and went to the wrong side and hit against the truck. The driver of the truck lodged the FIR with the police for rash and negligent driving by the deceased. It is averred that respondents No.1 to 6 are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever from the appellant.
3. LCR reveals that respondent No.7, driver of the truck appeared as RW-1 and deposed with respect to the above facts. The owner of the truck also appeared as RW-2. The insurance company also summoned the investigating officer of the police but his evidence was not recorded.
4. The learned Trial Court gave finding of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver on the ground that PW-1 was not cross-examined by counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and there was no application under Section 170 of the Act by the appellant to contest the claim petition on merits. The record shows that the permission under Section 170 was MAC.APP.No.493-2006 Page 3 of 4 granted to the insurance company on 18th August, 2005 and the appellant's counsel in fact cross-examined PW-1.
5. The findings of the learned Trial Court with respect to issue No.1 relating to the accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck needs examination.
6. I, therefore, issue notice of this appeal to the respondents and their counsel before the learned Tribunal by ordinary process, registered A.D., speed post as well as courier, returnable on 19th February, 2009. CM No.7824/2006
1. Issue notice, returnable on 19th February, 2009.
2. The appellant is directed to file an affidavit as to whether the award amount has been disbursed to respondents No.1 to 6 and if so, the details of the disbursement to be placed on record.
3. The impugned order shows that the accident in question resulted in death of the Rohtash Kumar who was driving the car and injuries to the two occupants of the car. The appellant is directed to file an affidavit as to whether any claim petition was filed in respect of the said injureds, if so, the particulars of those cases should also be furnished before the next date.
J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 28, 2009 aj MAC.APP.No.493-2006 Page 4 of 4