Delhi High Court
Harish Chander vs New India Assurance Co. & Ors on 17 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th August, 2012
+ FAO 131/1998
HARISH CHANDER ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. & ORS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Harish Chander, who was owner of the truck No.DEG-
1936 impugns a judgment dated 20.10.1995 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation
of `5,00,000/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.4 and 5.
2. The Claims Tribunal held that the New India Assurance Company's
liability was limited to `1,50,000/-. Rest of the compensation was held to
be payable by the Appellant Harish Chander, who was owner of the
offending vehicle.
3. In the instant Appeal Harish Chander has, inter alia, taken up the plea that
the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited.
4. I have before me the written statement filed by the Appellant before the
Claims Tribunal. It was specifically pleaded by the Appellant that the
Insurance Company's liability was unlimited because of the
comprehensive policy obtained by him.
5. The Trial Court record reveals that on 19.07.1995 one Shri S.B. Gupta
Respondents No.4 and 5's Attorney (Petitioners before the Claims
Tribunal) made an admission that the liability of the Insurance Company
was limited to `1,50,000/-. He stated that in case the award is passed
against the Insurance Company, the Claimants will not claim more than
`1.5 lacs from it. On the basis of this statement, the Claims Tribunal did
not go into the question of liability of Insurance Company. The
discussion on issue No.3 is extracted hereunder:-
"Issue No.3. In view of the statement of petitioner admitting the
liability of Insurance Company to be limited to 1½ lacs (on 19-7-
1995 in this Court). This issue is decided in favour of respondent-
Insurance Company."
6. Obviously, the Claimants could not have made any admission against the
Appellant's interest. This aspect ought to have been gone into by the
Claims Tribunal. Thus, issue No.3 ought not to have been decided
merely on the basis of concession given by Respondents No.4 and 5 (the
Claimants). The question of the liability of the First Respondent
Insurance Company has to be decided on merits, particularly, in view of
the specific defence taken by the Appellant that the Insurance Company's
liability was unlimited.
7. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that it would be
appropriate to grant an opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence
before the Claims Tribunal and to give afresh findings on all the issues. It
would be appropriate to decide the Claims Petition on the basis of the law
applicable as of now.
8. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded
back to the Claims Tribunal with the direction to decide all the issues
afresh.
9. During the pendency of Appeal, a sum of `2,00,000/- deposited by the
Appellant was released in favour of the Claimants, it shall be subject to
the final outcome of the Claim Petition to be decided afresh.
10. The amount of interest lying deposited with this Court shall be retained in
a fixed deposit for a period of one year and shall be renewed from time to
time, if need arises.
11. Since it is a very old case, the parties have undertaken to cooperate in the
quick disposal of the case. It is directed that the Claims Tribunal shall
endeavor to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the
next date of hearing.
12. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 03.09.2012.
13. Statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited, if any, shall be refunded to the
Appellant.
14. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2012
vk
