Delhi High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Khazan Singh & Anr on 4 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th September, 2012
+ MAC APP. 964/2011
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. with
Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv.
versus
KHAZAN SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 24.03.2011 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby
while awarding a compensation of `7,10,945/-, the Appellant U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) was made liable to pay the
compensation.
2. A short ground has been raised at the time of hearing of the Appeal. It is
urged that the Appellant UPSRTC had obtained insurance cover in
respect of its 500 buses in one go. Number of the bus was wrongly
mentioned as UP-81N-9146 instead of UP-81N-9148 in the list submitted
to the Insurance Company by the Appellant. Thus, the insurance cover for
a vehicle UP-81N-9146 was issued by the Respondent Oriental Insurance
Company Limited.
3. By a letter dated 23.07.2004 (Ex.R2W4/C) the Respondent Insurance
Company was informed about this mistake and was requested to issue a
correct cover note. The same was, however, not done and ultimately on
02.05.2005 bus No.UP-81N-9148 belonging to UPSRTC met with an
accident resulting in the injuries to the First Respondent. It is thus stated
that since it was Respondent Insurance Company's fault in not issuing the
correct policy, it was its (Insurance Company's) liability to pay the
compensation to the First Respondent and not that of the Appellant.
4. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was established that vehicle
No.UP-81N-9146 was a Tata Tempo for which insurance policy was
obtained by its owner Amrik Chand Singh. One such policy for the
period 01.09.2008 to 31.08.2009 is placed on page 61 of the paper book.
5. In order to prove that the Respondent Oriental Insurance Company was
informed about the mistake in mentioning the number of the bus by the
Appellant, the Appellant examined its General Manager H.N. Aggarwal
as R2W4. He testified that letter dated 23.07.2004 was written to the
Respondent Insurance Company to rectify the insurance for its bus
No.UP-81N-9148 instead of UP-81N-9146. He deposed that the
Insurance Company did not rectify the number nor gave any response to
the letter Ex.R2W4/C. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he
had not filed any proof of dispatch of letter dated 23.07.2004 to the
Respondent Insurance Company. He stated that the letter was delivered
to the Manager Shri Gupta (of the Respondent Insurance Company)
personally by messenger Mithai Lal (as stated by Mithai Lal). The
witness admitted that certain letters were written by the Appellant to the
Respondent Insurance Company on 24.04.2009 and 08.09.2009.
6. In the absence of proof of dispatch and delivery of the letter dated
23.07.2004, the Claims Tribunal opined that its service on the
Respondent Insurance Company was not proved and thus made the
Appellant liable to pay the compensation.
7. The conclusion reached by the Claims Tribunal is extracted hereunder:-
"....Simultaneously it is clear that the offending vehicle was not
insured with the respondent no.3 at any stage of time. The
contention of the respondent no.2 is that they had given a list in
which the number of the vehicle was incorrectly written
inadvertently as UP-81N-9146 instead of UP-81N-9148 has not
been proved as the respondent no.2 has failed to prove on record
that they have ever written any letter at any point of time to
respondent no.3 under acknowledgment. They even have not
examined Sh. Mithai Lal, their alleged messenger. Therefore, the
fact remains that the offending vehicle was not insured with the
Insurance Company at the time of accident. It is therefore, held
that the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to
the petitioner and the liability if any is of the respondent no.2, who
is the owner of the offending vehicle."
8. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the delivery of the
earlier mentioned letter, the Claims Tribunal's finding that the service of
letter was not established cannot be faulted.
9. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed
with costs of `25,000/- to the First Respondent as the payment of
compensation was stalled by the Appellant without any just cause. If cost
is not paid within a period of eight weeks, the statutory amount of
`25,000/- deposited by the Appellant UPSRTC shall be released in favour
of the First Respondent.
10. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012/vk
