Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shobha Ram Sharma & Ors. on 19 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th December, 2012
+ MAC APP. 770/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Manu Lav Shahlia, Advocate
Versus
SHOBHA RAM SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Abrar Ahmad & Mr.Shaffiullah,
Advocates for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 11.01.2012
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
whereby a compensation of ` 2,52,400/- was awarded in favour of the
First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident,
which occurred on 06.08.2005.
2. The only ground raised at the time of hearing of the Appeal is that the
Tempo No.HR-38-BG-4803 was not involved in the accident. In any
case, there was contributory negligence on the part of the First
Respondent and thus, the quantum of compensation is liable to be
reduced.
3. I have before me the Trial Court record. A joint written statement was
filed by Respondents No.2 and 3, that is, driver and owner of the
offending vehicle. In the written statement, no specific plea was taken
that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Respondent No.1
Shobha Ram Sharma filed his affidavit Ex. PW-1/X by way of his
evidence. He testified that on 06.08.2005 at about 11.45 a.m. he was
riding on the pillion seat of motorcycle No.DL-4S-AP-1530 which was
being driven by his friend Bhawani Prasad (PW-2). The offending vehicle
driven by Respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner came from
behind and hit the left side of the two-wheeler with its right rear side,
while taking a right turn. This part of PW-1's testimony was not
challenged in cross-examination. Even a suggestion was not given to PW-
1 as to the manner of the accident. PW-1's testimony was corroborated by
PW-2 Bhawani Prasad who was driving the two-wheeler at the time of
the accident. His testimony was also not disputed with regard to the
involvement of Tempo No.HR-38-BG-4803 and the manner of the
accident.
4. Of course, Ashok Talwar who is director of Respondent No.3
M/s.Godawari Polymers Pvt. Ltd. tried to make out a case (without any
pleading) that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. He simply
stated that at the alleged time of the accident Tempo No.HR-38-BG-4803
was parked outside the godown of Respondent No.2, that is, at Village
Satbari, New Delhi. It is important to note that PW-2 Ashok Talwar is not
an eye witness of the accident.
5. Respondent No.2 Mintoo who was allegedly driving the Tempo at the
time of the accident was not produced to give his version about the
involvement and the manner of the accident. R2W1's evidence claiming
non-involvement of the vehicle is of no consequence.
6. From the unchallenged testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to the
manner of the accident, it is established that the accident was caused on
account of rash and negligent driving of Tempo No.HR-38-BG-4803 by
its driver Respondent No.2.
7. The Appeal is groundless; the same is accordingly dismissed with a cost
of ` 10,000/-. The cost shall be paid to the First Respondent within four
weeks, failing which the First Respondent shall be paid the cost out of the
statutory amount deposited in this Court. If the cost is paid, the statutory
amount shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
8. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2012
v
