United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vipul Pathak & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4278 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 19th July, 2012

+        MAC. APP. No.130/2012

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate

                            Versus

         VIPUL PATHAK & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                      Through:       None.

+        MAC. APP. No.131/2012

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.      ..... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate

                            Versus

         BALJEET SINGH KHOKHAR & ORS.           ..... Respondents
                       Through: None.

+        MAC. APP. No.133/2012

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.      ..... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate

                            Versus

         VIRENDRA KUMAR PATHAK & ORS. ..... Respondents
                     Through: None.

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




MAC. APP. Nos.130, 131 & 133/2012                    Page 1 of 5
                                     JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. These three Appeals (MAC. APP. No.130/2012, 131/2012 and 133/2012) arise out of a common judgment dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal).

2. MAC. APP. No.130/2012 arise out of Suit No.446/2008 whereby a compensation of `64,396/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition was awarded in favour of the Respondent Master Vipul for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.09.2004.

3. MAC. APP. No.131/2012 arise out of Suit No.355/2008 and relates to the death of Deepti Khokhar who died in the earlier said accident and a compensation of `8,05,080/- was awarded to her legal representatives.

4. MAC. APP. No.133/2012 arise out of Suit No.447/2008 wherein the Respondent Virender Kumar Pathak suffered injuries in the same accident and an overall compensation of `25,344/- was granted in his favour.

5. The main ground of challenge in all the three Appeals is that the Respondent Mukesh, driver of the offending truck No.HR-38C- 8856 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the

accident. The Claim Petitions were being looked after by Ms.Jaya Tomar, Advocate appointed by the Appellant Insurance Company. The Claim Petitions were transferred to Saket District Court whereupon the brief was assigned to Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate. It is averred that said Ashwani Kumar, Advocate did not attend to after the case properly and unauthorisedly allowed one Mr. Jitender Kumar, Advocate to look after the case. The counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar did not take steps to lead evidence that the driver did not possess any licence resulting into the breach of the terms of the policy.

6. A perusal of the Trial Court record would show that on 27.11.2010 a copy of the driving licence was supplied to the counsel for the Insurance Company. On that date, one Ms. B. Kaur, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company. On the next date i.e. 11.12.2010, it was reported by the counsel for the Insurance Company (Mr.B.K. Sharma) that driving licence had not been verified. On the next date i.e. 22.01.2011, the matter was fixed for 19.02.2011 for evidence of both the parties. On 21.05.2011, Petitioners' evidence was recorded. The record reveals that while fixing the case again for Respondent's evidence for 05.09.2011, it was made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the Appellant Insurance Company. On 05.09.2011, no evidence was produced by the Respondents (including the Appellant herein). Consequently, the evidence was closed. Ultimately, arguments

were heard on 19.10.2011 and award passed on that very day.

7. It is important to note that the Appellant Insurance Company has set up entirely a different case in the instant Appeal. It says that the driver did not possess a driving licence, whereas as per the Trial Court's record a copy of the driving licence was supplied to the counsel for the Insurance Company and the same was not verified.

8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that a party should not be made to suffer because of the fault of an Advocate. There is nothing on the record which suggests any fault or negligence on the part of the Advocate. It is nowhere the case of the Appellant that the driving licence supplied by the Respondent (the owner) was found to be fake. Moreover, since the Appellant's plea was that there was some negligence on the part of the Appellant's advocate, by an order dated 16.04.2012 this Court directed the Appellant to file an affidavit about the action taken against the said advocate. The said order was not complied despite two opportunities given to the Appellant Insurance Company and no Affidavit was filed. The Appellant's averment that the driver did not possess a driving licence is belied from the record and, therefore, cannot be accepted.

9. In MAC. APP. 131/2012, it was stated that the compensation awarded is excessive as addition of 30% was made towards

inflation. The said ground is not pressed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2012(4) SCALE 559 and the judgment passed by this Court in MAC APP.390/2011 titled Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. decided on 16.07.2012.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.

11. The Appeals are devoid of any merit; the same are accordingly dismissed.

12. The Applications filed with the Appeals stand disposed of.

13. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

14. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JULY 19, 2012 pst