Delhi High Court
Icici Lombad General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Luv Kumar Das & Ors. on 8 April, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
3
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 92/2009
Date of Decision: 8th April, 2009
%
ICICI LOMBAD GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Pratima Choudhary, Adv.
versus
LUV KUMAR DAS & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through : None.
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)
CM No.3660/2009
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is
restored to its original number.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM No.1837/2009
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM No.1836/2009
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in
filing of this appeal is condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 92/2009
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on
quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.
2. The appellant had not taken the permission under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore,
the appellant cannot challenge the quantum of
compensation to the claimants. Reference in this regard be
made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi,
(2002) 7 SCC 456 and Shankarayya vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3 SCC 140 where it has been
held that in the absence of defence as envisaged under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act being taken over by
the Insurance Company, the appeal filed by the insurance
company cannot be maintained.
3. Even on merits, the main ground of challenge by the
appellant is that the learned Tribunal should have applied a
lower multiplier. The deceased victim of the accident was
aged 35 years at the time of the accident. The deceased
was survived by her husband and two minor children. The
learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 according to
the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There
are no exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant the
application of the lower multiplier. There is no infirmity in
adopting the multiplier of 16 by the learned Tribunal.
4. The second ground raised by the appellant is that the
driver of the scooter on which the deceased was sitting on
the pillion was under the influence of the liquor. The
appellant has referred to and relied upon the discharge slip
on which it is recorded that there was smell of alcohol in the
breath of the driver of the scooter. The discharge slip further
records that the driver was conscious and oriented. There is
no evidence to show that the driver of the scooter was under
the influence of the liquor. In any view of the matter, this
averment will not have any effect on the award of
compensation as the deceased was sitting on the pillion and
has not contributed to the accident in any manner. The
learned Tribunal has held the Haryana Roadways Bus bearing
No.HR-55A-7461 to be rash and negligent and the
compensation has been awarded against the appellant who
had insured the Haryana Roadways Bus which resulted in the
accident in question.
5. For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
CM No.1836/2009
Dismissed.
J.R. MIDHA, J
APRIL 08, 2009
aj
