Delhi High Court
Mahinder Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 27 July, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
32
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.588/2007
Date of Decision: 27th July, 2009
%
MAHINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .. Respondents
Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta and
Ms. Neelam Singh, Advs.
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 compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- has been
awarded to claimants/respondents No.2 and 3 against the
appellant.
2. The accident dated 26th July, 2006 resulted in the death
of Amandeep Kaur. The deceased was survived by her
parents who filed the claim petition before the learned
Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 17 years at the time of the
accident and was travelling in car bearing No.DL-1CE-7804
which was owned and driven by the appellant.
4. The claim petition was filed against the appellant and
respondent No.1 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. The car was
validly insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. Respondent No.1 defended the claim petition on the
ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the
car and was not covered under the Insurance policy. It was
further submitted that the passenger could have been
covered only upon charging additional premium which was
not charged in the present case and, therefore, risk of the
passengers travelling in the car was not covered.
6. Respondent No.2 produced a witness, RW2 who
deposed that the passengers of the car were not covered as
no extra premium was charged from the insured.
7. The learned Tribunal accepted the submission of
respondent No.1 and exonerated respondent No.1 from any
liability holding that respondent No.1 has no liability to pay
compensation in respect of the gratuitous passengers who
are not covered as no extra premium has been charged to
cover the passengers of the car.
8. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on
the short ground that the risk of the passengers of the car is
covered under the policy and there was no need to pay any
extra premium.
9. Vide order dated 27th April, 2009, the Manager (Legal)
of respondent No.1 was directed to appear before this Court
in pursuance to which the Manager (Legal) of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared before this Court on 1 st May,
2009 and his statement on oath was recorded under Section
165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement on oath of Mr.
Ravi Sharma is reproduced hereunder:-
"I have brought the copy of the policy along
with the terms and conditions of Private
Vehicles Package Policy applicable to the car in
question which contains Clause 1(i) in Section II
which covers the death or bodily injury to any
person including occupants carried in the
vehicle. The said clause on the terms and
conditions of the policy is marked as Mark „X‟ on
the policy Ex.-A."
10. Mr. Ravi Sharma has clearly admitted on oath that the
policy in question covers the risk of death or bodily injury to
any person including occupants carried in the vehicle.
11. On the basis of the admission of respondent No.1, the
appeal is allowed holding that the passengers of the
offending vehicle are covered under the policy in question.
12. The impugned award is modified to the extent that
respondent No.1 is liable to pay the entire award amount
along with interest thereon to the claimants and the
appellant is exonerated from the liability to pay the award
amount. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the entire
award amount along with interest with the learned Tribunal
within 30 days.
13. In view of the admission of Mr. Ravi Sharma before this
Court on 1st May, 2009 that the policy in question covers the
risk of death or bodily injury to any person including
occupants carried in the vehicle, it is clear that an incorrect
defence was raised before the learned Tribunal and also an
incorrect statement was made on oath before the learned
Tribunal and the learned Tribunal was misled. In view
thereof, cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed on respondent No.1 to
be paid by respondent No.1 to the appellant. The said cost
shall be recovered from the salary of the officer who signed
the written statement before the learned Tribunal and the
officer who appeared in the witness box before the learned
Tribunal to make an incorrect statement.
14. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the
appellant be returned to the appellant by the Registry within
four weeks.
15. List for compliance of the above order on 2 nd
September, 2009.
16. Copy of this order be given „Dasti‟ to learned counsel
for the parties under the signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JULY 27, 2009
aj
