New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ved Prakash & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1541 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Reserved on: 29th February, 2012
                                        Pronounced on: 5th March, 2012

+       MAC. APP. No.73/2012

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

                             Versus

        VED PRAKASH & ORS                          .... Respondents
                     Through:             Nemo

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


                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 29.10.2011 whereby a compensation of `3,75,000/- was awarded for the death of Ms. Anu, a minor child in an accident which occurred on 24.05.1999.

2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:

i) That the accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the Respondent Narayan Singh, driver of Truck No.UP-07C-0806. It was a head-on collision caused on account of the rash and negligence of the DTC bus driver coming from the

opposite direction. In any case, it was a case of contributory negligence.

ii) The First and the Second Respondents were responsible for delay in disposal of the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal was not justified in granting interest @ 7.5% per annum.

3. Although the quantum of compensation of `3,75,000/- awarded for the death of the deceased Anu is not disputed during the arguments; even otherwise, the same cannot be disputed in view of the judgments of this Court in Manju Devi v. Musafir, IV (2005) ACC 15, Sobhagya Devi v. Sukhvir Singh, II (2006) ACC 97, Syam Narayan v. Kitty Tours and Travels, 2006 ACJ 320 and of the Supreme Court in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, III (2006) ACC 261 and Lata Wadhwa & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors, (2001) 8 SCC 197. As far as award of interest is concerned, the Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that there was some delay attributable to the First and the Second Respondents. The claim petition was initially instituted in the year 2001. It was dismissed in default on 14.05.2002. It was again dismissed in default on 30.03.2005 and was restored on 10.11.2008. A perusal of the record shows that the Appellant was also responsible for the delay. The Appellant was absent despite service of the notice of restoration from 05.06.2003 to 01.10.2004. Since the claim petition was dismissed in default on 30.03.2005 to 10.11.2008, while awarding interest, the

Claims Tribunal specifically excluded the period from 30.03.2005 to 10.11.2008 for the grant of interest. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.

4. There is no ground to interfere in the same; the Appeal is dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 05, 2012 pst