Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Omwati & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1957 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Decided on: 21st March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 506/2010

        RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.

                                  versus

        OMWATI & ORS                                    ..... Respondents
                          Through:         Mr. N.K. Jha, Advocate for R-1
                                           to R-5.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                          JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

impugns judgment dated 14.04.2010 whereby a compensation of `33,90,726/- was awarded for the death of Head Constable Jagvir Singh who died in a motor accident which occurred on 30.07.2008.

2. The only ground of challenge is that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased Jagvir Singh. Thus, the Appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.

3. In para 23.1 of the Claim Petition, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 averred that on 30.07.2008, the deceased was proceeding on his

motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR51W3590 for execution of the summons/warrants; he was proceeding on Mathura Road and driving his motorcycle paying regard to the traffic rules. At 10.00 pm, a truck bearing No.HR38N5405 being driven by the Respondent No.4 (first Respondent before the Claims Tribunal) came from the same direction. While driving at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, the said tanker struck against the motorcycle with great force. On account of the forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and suffered injuries which proved fatal.

4. The driver of tanker contested the claim petition by way of filing a written statement and did not traverse the averments made in Para 23.1 (extracted above) either specifically or by necessary implication.

5. During evidence Respondent Nos.1 to 3 produced Constable Sudhir Singh who testified about the manner of the accident. He deposed that after striking down the deceased, the truck driver did not stop. He fled away and was apprehended at a distance of 150 yards and was brought back to the spot.

6. In this view of matter, the finding given by the Claims Tribunal that the accident was on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the truck bearing No. HR38N5405 cannot be said to be erroneous. The same is justified on the basis of the material available on record.

7. No other point has been raised.

8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.

9. Compensation shall be released (held in Fixed Deposits) to the Respondents/Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claim Tribunal.

10. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 21, 2012 neelam