* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 12.08.2011
+ MAC Appeal No. 842/2010 and CM No. 22195/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
...........Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva,
Advocate
Versus
SURENDER & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
for the respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ajay Paul, Advocate of the
respondent Nos. 2 & 3..
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The award impugned before this court is the award dated 20.08.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,88,000/- had been awarded in favour of the claimants. The victim Smt. Indu had died when she was allegedly crossing the road, she was hit by a Skoda Car bearing No. DL-8CL-2356 being driven in rash and negligent manner. The claimant is her husband Surender Singh. MAC APPEAL No. 842/2010 Page 1 of 3 In the written statement, the respondent/Insurance Company denied the factum of the accident; contention being that as per the MLC and the postmortem, the abrasions over the neck and the hanging marks as also the fact that the cause of death was spinal shock as a result of cavical @spinal injury due to hyper flexion extension injuries, the victim could not have died because of a road accident.
2 It is not disputed that evidence had been lead by the respective parties; the grievance of the appellant before this court is that the Award has not dealt with any of these contentions raised by the department. Three issues had been framed on 09.02.2010 by the learned Tribunal; the petitioner had produced two witnesses in his evidence but the respondent chose not to lead any evidence in defence. Opportunity had been granted to the Insurance Company to rebut these submissions but the record shows that respondent did not care to lead any evidence. In view of the evidence which had been brought on record i.e. the claimant i.e. husband of the deceased who was an eye witness as also the Investigating Officer who had registered FIR No. 547/2008 under Sections 279/304A of the IPC, the court after examination of the entire gamut of evidence had held that the victim had died as a result of the rash and negligent act of the MAC APPEAL No. 842/2010 Page 2 of 3 driver of the offending Skoda Vehicle. The MLC and the post- mortem of the victim has been perused; MLC has noted hanging marks on the neck of the victim; it has also noted that the victim has been brought in as a case of road accident by her husband; her blood pressure and pulse was not recordable. Post-mortem had recorded that all the injuries are ante-mortem and the death has been caused due to spinal shock and possibly in the manner in which it has been alleged; needless to state that the manner in which the victim had allegedly died was the result of the road accident. The appeal has been challenged on this ground only. The Award suffers from no infirmity.
3 Appeal is dismissed.
4 Statutory amount be released to the appellant.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 12, 2011
rb
MAC APPEAL No. 842/2010 Page 3 of 3