National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors. vs Raj Mala & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 4469 Del

25
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +       FAO.No.221/2002

%                              Date of decision: 4th November, 2009


      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.& ORS.       ..... Appellant
                    Through : Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv.

                   versus


    RAJ MALA & OTHERS                   ..... Respondents
                  Through : Mr. Vivekanand Rana, Adv.
                            for R-1.
                            Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Adv.
                            for R-5.
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.3,57,000/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The accident dated 30th October, 1996 resulted in the death

of Om Pal Singh. The deceased was survived by his widow, son

and daughter who filed the claim petition before the learned

Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 46 years at the time of the accident

and was working as a gardener. The learned Tribunal took the

minimum wages of Rs.3,151.50/- per month into consideration

and applied the multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of

dependency at Rs.3,27,756/-. Rs.25,000/- has been awarded

towards non-pecuniary compensation and Rs.4,000/- has been

awarded towards the funeral expenses. The total compensation

awarded is Rs.3,57,000/-.

4. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the

two grounds. The first ground of challenge relates to the

quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The second

ground of challenge is that the driver of the offending vehicle was

not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

5. The first ground of challenge relates to quantum of

compensation. It is noted that the appellant had not taken over

the defence of the owner and driver under Section 170 of the

Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the challenge with respect to

the quantum of compensation is not open to the appellant.

Notwithstanding the bar of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and

reasonable.

6. With respect to the second ground of challenge relating to

the driving licence of the offending vehicle, the appellant has not

led any evidence to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle

was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident

and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding of the learned

Tribunal.

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

8. The appellant has deposited the award amount with the

learned Tribunal in terms of the order dated 24 th April, 2002

which has been released to the claimants against security.

9. The security bond given by the claimants in terms of the

order dated 24th April, 2002 is discharged and the learned

Tribunal is directed to return back the same to the claimants.

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 04, 2009 mk