Delhi High Court
M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Indira Devi Dhawan on 20 November, 2008
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
MAC App. No. 556/2008 & CM No.16157/2008
% Judgment reserved on:17th November, 2008
Judgment delivered on:20th November, 2008
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Divi. Office Gulab Bhawan,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi ....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.K.Sharma, Adv.
Versus
1. Smt. Indira Devi Dhawan
2. Dr. Anmol Dhawan
S/o. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Dhawan
Both residents of 11/189, Rajinder Nagar,
Sector-3, Shahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Dr. Ashok Gupta
S/o. Sh. R.D. Gupta
R/o. 141, Savita Vihar, Anand Vihar,
Delhi-110092. ...Respondents.
Through: Nemo.
MAC App. No.556/2008 Page 1 of 5
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance
Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short as 'Act') challenging the award dated 1st
September, 2008 passed by Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short as 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 7th May, 2006, at
about 6.45 p.m., deceased (Susham Lata Dhawan) was going
on foot and was crossing road No.71, near Petrol Pump,
Vivek Vihar, Delhi. At that time, a vehicle bearing No.DL-
7CA-7431 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
deceased due to which she fell and sustained fatal injuries.
3. Respondent No.3 is the driver-cum-owner of the
offending vehicle, whereas the appellant is the insurer.
4. Respondent No.3 in his written statement has denied
the accident whereas, the appellant has admitted the factum
of insurance.
5. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal passed an award
in the sum of Rs.6,30,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization (excepting for the
periods not specifically allowed).
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for
appellant that the Tribunal held that respondent no.2,
nephew, is not a legal representative of the deceased and is
not entitled for any compensation. However, respondent no.1
did appear in the witness box to state that she was dependent
upon the deceased and from the documents it is clear that the
deceased was not residing with the respondent no.1.
Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the respondent
no.1 was dependent financially upon the deceased.
7. Lastly, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
8. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the
quantum of award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Since, the Insurance Company has challenged the
quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it
was imperative that permission under Section 170 of the Act
should have been obtained by the appellant before filing this
appeal. Admittedly, no application under Section 170 of the
Act was filed before the Tribunal nor any such permission as
envisaged in this Section was obtained.
10. Hence, for the reasons mentioned in MAC App.
No.297/2008 & CM No. 6725/2008, United India Insurance
Co. vs. Vijay Karketta & Ors., decided on 4th August, 2008
by this Court, the present appeal is not maintainable and the
same is, hereby, dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
November 20, 2008 V.B.GUPTA, J.
rs/Bisht
