The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Harpal Singh & Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1499 Del

*      HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

    MAC App. No.473/2008 & CM No.12148/2008

%            Judgment reserved on:25th August, 2008

             Judgment delivered on:1st September, 2008

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Jeevan Bharti Building,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi

Also at:
DRO-II,
Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi                               ....Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.

                           Versus

1. Sh. Harpal Singh,
   S/o. Sh. Mam Chand,
   R/o. Vill & PO:Harsoli,
   District:Muzafar Nagar, U.P.

2. Sh. Sunil Kumar,
   S/o. Sh. Elam Singh,
   R/o. Village Shoran,
   Post Shahpur,
   District: Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

3. Sh. Mohd. Qayum
   S/o. Mohd. Sarif
   R/o. Village Harsoli
   Dist. Muzaffarnagar, UP          ....Respondents.

                      Through:




MAC App.No.473/2008                           Page 1 of 4
 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.

By way of the present appeal, filed under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act'),

the Appellant/New India Insurance Company has

challenged the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2008

passed by Sh. Pradeep Chaddah, Judge, MACT, Delhi

vide which the appellant was directed to pay interim

compensation of Rs.50,000/- as envisaged under

Section 140 of the Act, to the claimants.

2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the

deceased was a Gratuitous passenger in the vehicle

which was meant for carrying goods and hence the

Insurance Company is not liable. Furthermore, it is a

question of evidence as to whether the deceased was

travelling in the tempo in the capacity of owner of the

goods or as a gratuitous passenger at the time of

accident and it could be proved only on the basis of

evidence and as such finding given by the Tribunal that

the deceased was travelling as a Gratuitous passenger,

will prejudice the rights of the appellant, in defending

the case on merits at the time of trial.

3. For awarding interim relief under Section 140 of

the Act, the Tribunal is required to see prima-facie, the

factum of accident involving the vehicle and the factum

of death of the person in a road accident.

4. The case of the appellant/Insurance Company is

that deceased was travelling as a Gratuitous passenger

in a goods vehicle whereas, the case of the claimants is

that, the deceased was travelling in the capacity of the

owner of the goods which were in the vehicle.

5. So, it is a matter of evidence which has to be gone

into by the trial court, as to whether the deceased was

travelling as a Gratuitous passenger or in the capacity

of owner of goods which were in the vehicle.

6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any

merits in the present appeal. However, this question

whether the deceased was a Gratuitous passenger

travelling in goods vehicle or he was travelling in the

capacity of the owner of the goods which were in the

vehicle, is left open to be decided by the Tribunal after

recording evidence.

7. With these observations, the present appeal

stands disposed of.

September 01, 2008                  V.B.GUPTA, J.
rs