32
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.588/2007
Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009
%
MAHINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .. Respondents
Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta and
Ms. Neelam Singh, Advs.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.2 and 3 against the appellant.
2. The accident dated 26th July, 2006 resulted in the death of Amandeep Kaur. The deceased was survived by her parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 17 years at the time of the accident and was travelling in car bearing No.DL-1CE-7804 which was owned and driven by the appellant. MAC .APP.No.588/2007 Page 1 of 4
4. The claim petition was filed against the appellant and respondent No.1 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. The car was validly insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. Respondent No.1 defended the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the car and was not covered under the Insurance policy. It was further submitted that the passenger could have been covered only upon charging additional premium which was not charged in the present case and, therefore, risk of the passengers travelling in the car was not covered.
6. Respondent No.2 produced a witness, RW2 who deposed that the passengers of the car were not covered as no extra premium was charged from the insured.
7. The learned Tribunal accepted the submission of respondent No.1 and exonerated respondent No.1 from any liability holding that respondent No.1 has no liability to pay compensation in respect of the gratuitous passengers who are not covered as no extra premium has been charged to cover the passengers of the car.
8. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the short ground that the risk of the passengers of the car is covered under the policy and there was no need to pay any extra premium.
9. Vide order dated 27th April, 2009, the Manager (Legal) of respondent No.1 was directed to appear before this Court in pursuance to which the Manager (Legal) of National MAC .APP.No.588/2007 Page 2 of 4 Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared before this Court on 1 st May, 2009 and his statement on oath was recorded under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement on oath of Mr. Ravi Sharma is reproduced hereunder:-
"I have brought the copy of the policy along with the terms and conditions of Private Vehicles Package Policy applicable to the car in question which contains Clause 1(i) in Section II which covers the death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle. The said clause on the terms and conditions of the policy is marked as Mark „X‟ on the policy Ex.-A."
10. Mr. Ravi Sharma has clearly admitted on oath that the policy in question covers the risk of death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle.
11. On the basis of the admission of respondent No.1, the appeal is allowed holding that the passengers of the offending vehicle are covered under the policy in question.
12. The impugned award is modified to the extent that respondent No.1 is liable to pay the entire award amount along with interest thereon to the claimants and the appellant is exonerated from the liability to pay the award amount. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest with the learned Tribunal within 30 days.
13. In view of the admission of Mr. Ravi Sharma before this Court on 1st May, 2009 that the policy in question covers the risk of death or bodily injury to any person including MAC .APP.No.588/2007 Page 3 of 4 occupants carried in the vehicle, it is clear that an incorrect defence was raised before the learned Tribunal and also an incorrect statement was made on oath before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal was misled. In view thereof, cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed on respondent No.1 to be paid by respondent No.1 to the appellant. The said cost shall be recovered from the salary of the officer who signed the written statement before the learned Tribunal and the officer who appeared in the witness box before the learned Tribunal to make an incorrect statement.
14. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant by the Registry within four weeks.
15. List for compliance of the above order on 2 nd September, 2009.
16. Copy of this order be given „Dasti‟ to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 27, 2009 aj MAC .APP.No.588/2007 Page 4 of 4