Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Pyare Lal & Ors. on 9 February, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.1367/2010 and CM No.19359/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Rameeza Hakim,
Advocate
versus
PYARE LAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
% Date of Decision : February 09, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited seeks quashing and setting aside of the
orders dated 6th October, 2010 and 20th October, 2010 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. The order dated 6th October, 2010 is being reproduced
hereunder:-
"In the Court of Hon'ble Sh. Rajiv
Mehra, Ld. Presiding Officer, Judge,
MACT, Delhi
Suit No.224F/2010
6.10.10
Present : Shri N.K.Goel, counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr.M.P.Shahi, counsel for
Insurance company along with
Ms.Sunanda Nimisha, Sr.
Executive Legal
This is a fatal case of 12 years school
going boy. The normal compensation as per
the law laid down in the matter of R.K.
Malik & Anr. V. Kiran pal & Ors. II (2009)
ACC 705 (SC) is of the amount of
Rs.3,75,000/-, out of which Rs.2,25,000/-
for loss of dependency, Rs.75,000/- for non-
pecuniary damages and Rs.75,000/- towards
future prospects has been granted by the
Court.
In the present case as per the counsel
for the insurance company the verification is
complete. The insurance company has been
submitting an offer of the amount of
Rs.2,25,000/- which is contrary to the legal
position laid down in the judgment as stated
above. No justification is found in the offer
so given by the insurance company. The
insurance company is not giving a proper
amount and may not take it like a bounty.
Insurance company is not doing any
charitable act. This conduct has only cause
delay in disposal of the matter. It would
defeat the basic purpose of the DAR
proceedings as such. The counsel is sticking
to the proposal submitted by him. Insurance
company is imposed with a cost of
Rs.25,000/- and Sr. Vice President of the
company be remain present in person on the
next date of hearing. Counsel submits that
cost is on the higher side. Request decline.
Adjourned for 13.09.10 at 2.00 p.m. Copy
of the order be given dasti as prayed.
(RAJIV MEHRA)
PO, MACT, EAST DISTRICT DELHI
6.10.10
At this stage, Sh. M.P. Shai counsel for the
insurance company appeared and request to
change the date from 13.09.2010 to
20.09.10. On his request matter is adjourned
for 20.09.10. He undertakes that he would
inform the counsel for the petitioner about
the change date.
Sd/-
(RAJIV MEHRA)
PO, MACT, EAST DISTRICT DELHI
6.10.10"
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a review
petition which was also dismissed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal on 20th October, 2010.
4. The sole contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company
is that the proposal for settlement had been submitted by the
Insurance Company in terms of "The Claims Tribunal Agreed
Procedure". Regulation 6 (2) and (3) were relied upon which are to
the following effect:-
(2) The Claims Tribunals shall treat the Detailed
Accident Report filed by the Investigating Officer as a
claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor
Vehicles Act. However, where the Police is unable to
produce the claimants on the first date of hearing, the
Claims Tribunal shall initially register the Detailed
Accident Report as a miscellaneous application which
shall be registered as a main claim petition after the
appearance of the claimants.
(3) The Claims Tribunal shall grant 30 days time to the
Insurance Company to examine the Detailed Accident
Report and to take a decision as to the quantum of
compensation payable to the claimants in accordance
with law. The decision shall be taken by the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company in writing and it shall
be a reasoned decision. The Designated officer of the
Insurance Company shall place the written reasoned
decision before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days of the
date of complete Detailed Accident Report.
5. Learned counsel further relies upon Regulation 11 (2) and (3)
which reads as under:-
"(2) Without prejudice to its rights and contentions,
where in the opinion of the Insurance Company, in a
claim for death of a person, such a claim is payable it
shall confirm the same to the Claims Tribunal within
sixty days of receiving notice of the claim case from the
Claims Tribunal, or on the first date of hearing of the
application as contained in the notice issued by the
Claims Tribunal, whichever is later, by way of an offer of
settlement of claim, with a supporting computation/
calculation, under a duly attested affidavit of the
Divisional Officer/ Officer appointed for such purpose.
(3) When on the date of hearing of such application and
on receipt of such offer from the insurance Company, the
Claimant(s) agree to the offer of settlement of the
Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal shall record
such settlement by way of a consent decree and payment
shall be made by the Insurance Company within a
maximum period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of a copy of the consent decree which shall be made
available to the parties by the Claims Tribunal within a
maximum period of seven working days from the passing
of such decree. Where the Claimant(s) refuses to accept
the offer of settlement, the Claims Tribunal shall give the
Insurance Company a period of 30 days to file its written
statement and the matter shall proceed as if in terms of
sub Clause (4) onwards below."
6. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that assuming
the offer of settlement made by the Insurance Company in terms of
"The Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure" was not acceptable to the
claimants or was not approved of by the Claims Tribunal, the Claims
Tribunal ought to have given the Insurance Company a period of 30
days to file its written statement and then proceeded to hold the
inquiry in terms of Clause (4) of Regulation (11) and under Section
168 of the Act. The imposition of costs was unjustified.
7. It may be observed at this juncture that "The Claims Tribunal
Agreed Procedure" was formulated to expedite the disposal of claims
where a claims petition had been filed and where even no claim
petition had been filed, but a Detailed Accident Report had been
submitted by the police. A duty was cast upon the Insurance
Company to hold out an offer for settlement, so that the destitute
legal representatives of the deceased in fatal accident cases and the
victim himself in injury cases, received compensation on an early
date. "The Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure" was not meant to be
used by the Claims Tribunal for the purpose of enforcing settlement
when the same was not acceptable to either the claimant or the
insurance company. This being so, and the Insurance Company
having held out a proposal for settlement, the Claims Tribunal,
though it was well within its right to reject the same if it was not just,
could not have imposed costs on the Insurance Company for not
holding out an offer in terms of the expectations of the Claims
Tribunal or the claimants.
8. It is stated at the Bar that an award has already been passed by
the Learned Tribunal on 10th November, 2010. In this view of the
matter, the orders dated 6th October, 2010 and 20th October, 2010 are
set aside to the extent that the costs are waived.
9. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The petitioner shall be entitled to the release of the amount of
costs, if already deposited by the petitioner.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
February 09, 2011
sk
