Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr. on 12 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 12.7.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No.416/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...........Appellants
Through: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate.
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
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. This appeal has impugned the Award dated 18.3.2010.
Compensation in the sum of Rs.1,92,000/- had been awarded in
favour of the petitioner along with interest at 7.5%.
2. Facts emanating are that on 4.4.2003 the petitioner being a
driver of an Indica Car while driving this vehicle, at the Burari red
light chowk, suffered an accident with a tempo; contention being
that the tempo was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
Indica car of the petitioner was damaged and driver sustained
injuries. FIR No.148/2003 had been registered against the driver
of the offending vehicle.
3. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Contention is three fold; it is contended that the entire bills had
not been filed by the petitioner to substantiate his claim for award
of damages in his favour; second contention was that negligence
had not been proved of the offending vehicle i.e. of the tempo; the
third and last argument was that no compensation could have
been awarded under any other miscellaneous head as has been
noted on page 29 of the impugned award; except for the amount
awarded under sub-head no.1 the amounts awarded under the
other different head are an illegality and are liable to be set aside.
The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Vs. APSRTC
II(2009) ACC 287 to support her submission that under Section
165 of the Motor Vehicle Act damages can only be awarded to
property which in turn means to damage to the vehicle and cannot
be allowed on any other count.
None has appeared for the respondent.
4. Record shows that the "Repaired Damages" under the head
of compensation awarded had been in the sum of `1,45,000/-; this
was keeping in view the 14 bills which had been proved by the
petitioner (Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/14) which bills had not been
disputed; the final bill dated 11.7.2003 was in the sum of
`1,44,460/-. This amount of `1,45,000/- awarded under the head
of "Repaired Damages" calls for no interference.
The other amounts awarded as towing charges,
inconvenience caused to the petitioner, conveyance charges i.e.
the amount spent by the petitioner while his vehicle was being
repaired, loss of income in this intervening period are illegal and
impermissible.
Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows:
165.Claims Tribunals: (1) A State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or
more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in
this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such
area as may be specified in the notification for the
purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in
respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily
injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor
vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so
arising, or both."
5. "Damages to any property" as occurring in this
Section refers to a direct damage to the property alone i.e. to the
vehicle in question which in this case was the TATA India vehicle.
Damages assessed on that account was rightly awarded in the
sum of Rs.1,45,000/-. The damages or loss suffered by the owner
of the vehicle due to the vehicle having remained idle during the
period of its repair are not permissible under Section 165 of the
M.V.Act. The grant of these amounts is an illegality; they are
liable to be set aside. This view is supported by the judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in New India Assurance
Co. (supra); It is only the Civil Court which can pass a decree on
other counts;
6. The Tribunal had rightly relied upon the ratio of the
judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 (ACJ) 287, Delhi to hold that
certified copies of the criminal record including FIR, recovery
memos, mechanical inspection report are sufficient proof to
conclude that the driver was negligent; FIR had been registered in
this case under Section 279/337 of the IPC at Police Station
Timarpur. The mechanical inspection report of the Indica Car had
revealed damages on its rear side whereas the mechanical
inspection report of the Indica Car had revealed damages on the
front and left side meaning thereby that the offending vehicle had
hit the TATA Indica Car from the rear side. The impugned Award
on no other count calls for any interference. The Award is
accordingly modified. The petitioner is awarded compensation in
the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of the institution of the petition i.e.
22.8.2007 till the dispatch of the notice to claimant and his
counsel intimating the deposit of the awarded amount.
Appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 12, 2011
nandan
