Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Sh.Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3411 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Judgment: 18.7.2011


+      MAC APPEAL No. 474/2010 & CM No.13217/2010


BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                   ...........Appellant
               Through: Ms.Rameeza Hakim, Advocate.

                   Versus

SH.SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.           ..........Respondents
             Through: Mr.S.K.Pandey, Advocate.

       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 7.4.2010 vide

which compensation in the sum of Rs.18,56,326/- had been

awarded in favour of the claimants of the deceased; these were

under the head of pecuniary damages as also non-pecuniary.

Interest has been awarded at 7.5% per annum from the date of

the filing of the petition till the of notice of deposit to the

claimants.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the "M.V.Act"). On

10.8.2007 the deceased Raj Kumar while travelling on his

motorcycle suffered an accident with an another motorcycle

pursuant to which he fell down and sustained injuries; he

succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead. Oral and

documentary evidence was led. PW-2 was the eye witness. Bone

of contention in this appeal is that Pw-2 was a planted witness and

this is clear from his cross-examination; his version could not have

been relied upon; if this statement is discredited the impugned

award is liable to be set aside. Arguments have been

rebutted. Record shows that PW-2 had filed his affidavit

Ex.PW-2/A. He had admitted that on the day of the accident he

had noted the number of the offending vehicle on a slip which he

had given to the investigating officer; the case of his friend Kishan

Lal was with the same investigating officer; he denied the

suggestion that he was an introduced witness.

3. From the record it has emanated that the accident had

occurred on 10.8.2007; FIR No.155/2007 had been registered

under Section 279/304A of the IPC at police station Parliament

Street. Charge sheet had been filed on 31.8.2007. Name of the

eye witness (PW-2) had been mentioned in the charge sheet.

Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-2 had

surfaced only on 26.10.2009 is thus contrary to the record; his

name found mention in the charge sheet; even otherwise a

sentence from here and there cannot be picked up to discredit a

witness; testimony of PW-2 was rightly relied upon by the

Tribunal. The Award has not been impugned on any other ground;

it calls for no interference. Appeal is without any merit. The

appeal as also pending application is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

JULY 18, 2011 nandan