New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rukma Devi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 7218 Del

$ 31

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 17th December, 2012
+        CM(M).1301/2012

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.            ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.

                        Versus


         RUKMA DEVI & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                      Through:           None


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. A DAR (Detailed Accident Report) was filed by the Investigating Officer. As per the Agreed Claims Tribunal Procedure, an offer of `8,93,184/- was made by the Petitioner Insurance Company. A Claim Petition was preferred by the Respondents (the Claimants). The Petitioner Insurance Company was required to file its written statement on 09.12.2011. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that on 09.12.2011, the Petitioner also required the Investigating Officer to file a complete DAR in accordance with Section 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure. A perusal of the Trial Court record further reveals that the issues were framed by an order dated 14.02.2012, which are extracted hereunder:

(i) Whether Sh. Mohan S/o Sh. Dena Jee, who was travelling in his cycle, died on account of injuries suffered due to road accident on 06.08.2011 at about 12:30 p.m. at near Mangolpuri Railway Line Flyover, Mangolpuri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Mangolpuri due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.UP-20G-6701 being driven by respondent No.1?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what an extent and from which of the respondents?

(iii) Relief.

2. The Respondents(the Claimants) examined two witnesses and the matter was adjourned for further evidence of the Petitioner.

3. While the case was fixed for remaining evidence of the Petitioner, on 25.10.2012 the following order was passed by the Claims Tribunal:

"Counsel for insurance company who states that they have no statutory defence to offer. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no need for any evidence. The matter can be settled. A proposal for settlement is calculated on the basis of all available decision right from the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, to the minimum which is conveyed to counsel for insurance company.

Let the concerned General Manager of the Insurance Company to appear in person on 7.11.12 at 2.30 p.m."

4. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 6026-6027/2007 decided on 13.10.2011, the Supreme Court laid down that the Insurance Company apart from having the statutory defences available to it regarding breach of the terms and conditions of policy; can contest the Claim Petition on all grounds without seeking any leave of the Court to take the defence available to driver and owner. In other words, an insurer of a vehicle is now permitted to contest the Claim Petition on the issue of negligence as also on the quantum of compensation. Thus,

the Claims Tribunal was not right in holding that since the Insurance Company has no statutory defence, there is no need to give an opportunity to the Petitioner Insurance Company to lead its evidence. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Kalra (Smt., CM(M).749/2012 decided on 30.07.2012) has laid down that whenever a reasoned offer given by the Insurance Company is not acceptable to the Claimant/Claimants, the DAR has to be tried as a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). In this particular case, the Respondents had, in fact, already filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal acted illegally and committed material irregularity in cutting short the inquiry by denying the Petitioner an opportunity to prove its defence. On top of it, by cutting short the inquiry the Claims Tribunal without any justifiable reason directed the General Manager of the Petitioner to appear in person. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that it has not spelt out the reasons for the personal appearance of the General Manager. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Daiyan & Ors., (CM.(M).1201/2012) decided on 06.11.2012, while dealing with a similar order passed by this very Claims Tribunal, this Court had to remind him that the General Manager of a Public Sector Insurance Company looks after a large region and he should be summoned to appear personally only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

5. As stated above, no reason whatsoever has been given by the Claims Tribunal for the personal presence of the Petitioners General Manager.

6. It appears that the Claims Tribunal unnecessarily wants to put pressure upon a litigant to settle a matter which is not permissible. The impugned order dated 25.10.2012 is illegal; the same is accordingly set aside.

7. A copy of the order be sent to the Committee of the Hon'ble Judges for information.

8. A copy of the order be also transmitted to the Claims Tribunal through the District Judge.

9. The Petition is allowed in above terms.

10. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Petitioner Insurance Company.

11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 17, 2012 pst