Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prem Pal Singh & Ors. on 12 August, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.74/2007
% Date of decision: 12th August, 2009
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv.
versus
PREM PAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Arya and Mr. M.K. Singh,
Advs. for Respondent no. 1
Mr. Bhavani Shankar, Adv. for
respondent no. 2 and 3with
respondent no. 2 in person.
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)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned
Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs. 2,79,041/- has been
awarded to claimant/respondent no. 1.
2. The claimant was travelling in TSR bearing No.DL-1W-0272
which met with an accident with Maruti car bearing No.DL-ICG-
0872.
3. The claimant filed the claim petition against the driver and
owner of TSR and the owner and insurance company of the
Maruti Car.
4. The learned Tribunal held the driver of Maruti Car to be rash
and negligent. The Maruti car was validly insured with the
appellant and the entire liability to pay the award amount was
put on the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of
the TSR was negligent. In the alternative, it is submitted that it is
the case of contributory negligence of the driver of TSR and the
driver of Maruti car and, therefore, the liability of the appellant
should be 50% of the award amount.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the statement of
claimant/respondent no. 1 in the claim petition where it is stated
that the driver of the TSR as well as driver of the Maruti car were
both rash and negligent.
7. Claimant/respondent no. 1 appeared in the witness box as
PW-1 and deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Maruti car. PW-1 deposed that the Maruti
car took over the TSR and took a sudden left turn towards NSIT
main gate and hit the TSR.
8. The driver of TSR also appeared in the witness box as RW-1
and deposed that the Maruti car came from behind and over took
the TSR and took a sharp left turn towards NSIT main gate and hit
the TSR.
9. The certified copy of statement of claimant/respondent No.1
before the Criminal Court was also placed on record in which the
claimant deposed that the accident occurred due to negligent
driving of the Maruti car who had taken a sharp turn. The
claimant also made a complaint to DCP (West) and SHO, P.S.,
Uttam Nagar - Ex.PW1/5 for prosecution of the Maruti car driver.
10. The site plan prepared by the police at the time of the
accident was also placed on record which shows that at the time
of the accident, the car was in front of the TSR.
11. The mechanical inspection report of Maruti car shows
damage on the left rear corner whereas mechanical inspection of
the TSR shows damage on the right rear portion.
12. The driver of the Maruti car did not appear in the witness
box.
13. The learned Tribunal held the driver of the Maruti car to be
rash and negligent on the basis of the statement of PW-1
(claimant/respondent No.1), statement of RW-1 (driver of TSR),
site plan and mechanical inspection reports of the TSR and Maruti
car. There is no infirmity in the findings of the learned Tribunal as
to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti car.
The findings of the learned Tribunal are, therefore, upheld.
14. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. The appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount with
the MACT which has been released to claimant/respondent No.1.
The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining 50% of the
award amount along with up to date interest with the learned
Tribunal within a period of 30 days.
16. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, the appellant shall
file the affidavit along with proof of deposit of the balance
amount with the Registry whereupon the Registry shall release
the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant without any
further order from this Court.
J.R. MIDHA, J
AUGUST 12, 2009
neelam
