Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Suraj Kaur & Ors. on 9 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 9th January, 2012
+ MAC APP. 640/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
....... Appellant
Through: Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate
Versus
SURAJ KAUR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Deval Advocate for R-1
to R-3.
ASI Abhainandan, PS Mundka.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. impugns
the order dated 22.07.2010 whereby an interim compensation of
` 50,000/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents Claimants
(as no fault liability under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988) in respect of death of Ravinder who died in a motor
accident which took place on 26.01.2008.
2. The Appellant's grievance is that the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Tribunal) relied on the FIR to come to the
conclusion that the mini truck bearing number HR-67-3624 was
involved in the accident. Learned counsel for the Appellant
argues that the number of the offending vehicle was not
mentioned in the FIR before the Tribunal to form an opinion for
involvement of the earlier stated vehicle. Learned counsel for
the Appellant has read before me FIR No.63/2008 dated
27.01.2008 recorded in Police Station Nangloi at 3:10 hours.
3. I have gone through the FIR. Learned counsel for the Appellant
is right that the number of vehicle involved in the accident is
not mentioned in the FIR.
4. However, a perusal of the written statement filed by the
Appellant Insurance Company shows that the involvement of
the vehicle No.HR-67-3624 was admitted by the Appellant as it
was averred in para one of the pre-objection that the owner had
allowed the vehicle to be driven willingly by a person not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
5. I have before me the Trial Court record wherein host of the
documents were filed on 21st August, 2009 (much before
passing of the impugned order) including the report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Mechanical Inspection in respect of the
truck number HR-67-3624 involved in the accident.
6. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that the
statement of Vinod Kumar, an eye witness was recorded who
deposed that the driver of truck number HR-67-3624 while
driving the vehicle rashly and negligently caused the accident.
It is also stated that the truck driver got down to see the injured
and thereafter fled away alongwith the vehicle.
7. The involvement of the vehicle was clearly made out from the
material placed on record before the Tribunal.
8. In the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harpal
Singh & Ors., MANU/DE/2656/2008, it was held by this Court
that for awarding interim compensation under Section 140 of
the Act the Tribunal is required to see prima facie the factum of
accident involving the vehicle and factum of death of the person
in a road accident. The purpose of awarding interim
compensation on the basis of no fault liability is to provide
immediate succour to the victim of a road accident whether an
injured or the legal representative of the deceased. This
accident took place on 26.01.2008. The claim petition along
with all the documents showing involvement of vehicle No.HR-
67-3624 were before the Tribunal on 21.08.2009. The
insurance company instead of giving an offer after getting the
documents verified, placed obstacle even on the payment of
interim compensation by way of filing an Appeal.
9. The Appeal is frivolous; the same is accordingly dismissed with
cost of ` 10,000/-.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY, 09, 2012
vk
