Bajaj Allians General Insurance ... vs Surender & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3943 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 12.08.2011

+      MAC Appeal No. 842/2010 and CM No. 22195/2010

BAJAJ ALLIANS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                          ...........Appellant
                    Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva,
                             Advocate
               Versus

SURENDER & OTHERS                               ..........Respondents
                 Through:           Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
                                    for the respondent No. 1.
                                    Mr. Ajay Paul, Advocate of the
                                    respondent Nos. 2 & 3..

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The award impugned before this court is the award dated

20.08.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,88,000/-

had been awarded in favour of the claimants. The victim Smt. Indu

had died when she was allegedly crossing the road, she was hit by

a Skoda Car bearing No. DL-8CL-2356 being driven in rash and

negligent manner. The claimant is her husband Surender Singh.

In the written statement, the respondent/Insurance Company

denied the factum of the accident; contention being that as per

the MLC and the postmortem, the abrasions over the neck and the

hanging marks as also the fact that the cause of death was spinal

shock as a result of cavical @spinal injury due to hyper flexion

extension injuries, the victim could not have died because of a

road accident.

2 It is not disputed that evidence had been lead by the

respective parties; the grievance of the appellant before this court

is that the Award has not dealt with any of these contentions

raised by the department. Three issues had been framed on

09.02.2010 by the learned Tribunal; the petitioner had produced

two witnesses in his evidence but the respondent chose not to

lead any evidence in defence. Opportunity had been granted to

the Insurance Company to rebut these submissions but the record

shows that respondent did not care to lead any evidence. In view

of the evidence which had been brought on record i.e. the

claimant i.e. husband of the deceased who was an eye witness as

also the Investigating Officer who had registered FIR No.

547/2008 under Sections 279/304A of the IPC, the court after

examination of the entire gamut of evidence had held that the

victim had died as a result of the rash and negligent act of the

driver of the offending Skoda Vehicle. The MLC and the post-

mortem of the victim has been perused; MLC has noted hanging

marks on the neck of the victim; it has also noted that the victim

has been brought in as a case of road accident by her husband;

her blood pressure and pulse was not recordable. Post-mortem

had recorded that all the injuries are ante-mortem and the death

has been caused due to spinal shock and possibly in the manner in

which it has been alleged; needless to state that the manner in

which the victim had allegedly died was the result of the road

accident. The appeal has been challenged on this ground only. The

Award suffers from no infirmity.

3     Appeal is dismissed.

4     Statutory amount be released to the appellant.



                                        INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 12, 2011
rb