Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Himdari Dutta & Ors on 23 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd February, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 69/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate
versus
HIMDARI DUTTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.Acharjee, Advocate for
R-1 to R-3.
And
+ MAC.APP. 212/2012
HIMDARI DUTTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.Acharjee, Advocate.
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
C.M.No.1534/2011
The award amount has already been deposited and 50% of the
amount has already been disbursed in terms of the order of Tribunal.
The interim order dated 04.03.2011 is made absolute.
The application stands disposed of.
C.M.No.21048/2011(cross objections) and 21049/2011 (Delay)
There is a delay of 62 days in filing the cross objections.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 62 days in filing the cross objection is condoned.
Both the applications are allowed. Cross-Objections has been
registered as MAC APPL.212/2012.
MAC APPL.69/2011
1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 30.11.2011 whereby a
compensation of Rs.18,80,000/- was awarded to the Respondent
No.1 to 3 for the death of Dr.Nabonita Dutta in an accident
which took place on 29.12.2004.
2. One of the grounds urged on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance
Company is that due opportunity to prove its defence was not
granted to the Appellant.
3. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the Claim
Petition was instituted on 16.01.2006. After service of the
parties and completion of pleadings the issues were framed on
27.11.2006. The evidence of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 who
were claimants before the Tribunal was completed on
15.02.2010 and 20.04.2010 was the first date fixed for the
evidence of the Appellant/Insurance Company. On this date
evidence of R3W1 was recorded. It is urged by the learned
counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant took adequate steps
for the service of the witness from Transport Authority, UNA,
H.P., dasti summons were also served. The evidence of the
Appellant was closed on the ground that the case was old.
4. A perusal of the order dated 20.04.2010 reveals that no reason
has been given by the Claims Tribunal for closing the
Appellant's evidence. It is apparent that the Appellant was
denied due opportunity to prove its defence particularly when
the Appellant alleged breach of the policy conditions.
5. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment so far as it relates
to proving breach of terms of policy on the part of the insured is
set aside. The case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for
the decision on the issue of liability afresh after granting due
opportunity to the Appellant to lead its evidence.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on
23.03.2012. The Claims Tribunal shall ensure the attendance of
the witness from Transport Authority, UNA, H.P. It shall
endeavour to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months.
7. 50% of the award amount was released to Respondents No. 1 to
3 in terms of order dated 04.03.2011, 50% lying deposited with
the Registrar General shall be released to the Appellant.
8. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall also be refunded.
9. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
MAC.APP. 212/2012
10. The Cross-Objections are also disposed of with liberty to
Respondents No. 1 to 3 to file again any cross objections or
Appeal as they are advised.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2012
mr
