Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company vs Paramjit Singh & Ors. on 26 November, 2008
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
MAC App. No.127/2005 & CM No.3086/2005
% Judgment reserved on: 17th November, 2008
Judgment delivered on:26th November, 2008
New India Assurance Company,
Through its
Delhi Regional Office-2, Legal Department,
Jeevan Raksha Building, IInd Floor, 12/1,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-2. ....Appellant.
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv.
Versus
1. Paramjit Singh
S/o. Sh. Karanail Singh
66-46, Galia Mandi Deep Distt.
Raisen M.P. (Owner of Vehicle)
2. Sh. Latif Khan
S/o. Sh. Waliat Khan,
C/o. Guru Nanak Traders
Near Galla Mandi,
Deep Distt. Raisen, M.P.
(Driver of Vehicle)
3. Smt. Haushila Devi
W/o. Late Sh. Kalu Ram.
4. Shogalia, Daughter
5. Mnogila, Daughter
6. Hakesh, Son
MAC App.No.127 of 2005 Page 1 of 5
7. Kamlesh, Son
All Respondents No.2 to 7
Are R/o. Village Udheypur (Maholi)
Post Purey Dhanti, Distt. Pratap Garh
Uttar Pradeh,
Presently K-464, Mangol Puri,
Delhi. ...Respondents.
Through: Mr. S.L. Kashyap, Adv. for
R- 3-7.
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 under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act') has been filed
against judgment dated 4th August, 2004 passed by Sh.
Sukh Dev Singh, Judge MACT (for short as 'Tribunal')
vide which the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.4,59,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the
date of filing of petition till realization.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 2nd May, 1989
at about 1.20 p.m. deceased (Kallu Ram) was returning
to his house on his bicycle, after selling toys in a
marriage party in Model Town Area. As soon as he
reached DTC Bus Stand, one Truck bearing No.MQB-
6646 being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and
negligent manner hit the cycle of the deceased and due
to the impact, deceased fell down on the road and was
run over by the truck.
3. The Truck is owned by respondent No.1 and is
insured with the appellant.
4. Aggrieved with the award passed by the Tribunal,
the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
5. The appellant in its grounds of appeal has taken
up the plea that liability of appellant is limited to the
tune of Rs.1,50,000 per accident.
6. However, no arguments on this plea has been
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Another plea taken by the appellant in its grounds
of appeal is that the driver did not possess a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
for the appellant fairly conceded that appellant has
failed to prove this issue.
9. On quantum, it has been contended by learned
counsel for appellant, that the multiplier of 17 adopted
by the Tribunal in the present case, is on higher side
and the Tribunal ought to have made 1/3rd deduction
on account of personal expenses, instead of 1/4th.
10. In the present case, no permission under Section
170 of the Act was sought by the appellant before the
Tribunal. Moreover, the appellant has not challenged
the quantum of compensation in the present appeal.
11. Under the circumstances, 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.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Trial court record be sent back.
November 26, 2008 V.B.GUPTA, J.
rs/Bisht
