Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Chinta Devi & Ors. on 9 October, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.A. No. 786/2012 & CM No. 12625/2012 (for stay)
% Judgment delivered on: 9th October,2013
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
Versus
CHINTA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.R.R.Jha & Mr.G.S.Sharma,
Advocates for Respondent Nos.
1 to 3.
Mr.S.P. Gairola, Advocate for
Respondent No.4.
Mr.Deep Karan Singh Dalal,
Advocate for Respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance
Company assailing the impugned order dated 18.04.2012, whereby the
learned Tribunal has granted a compensation for a sum of
Rs.16,82,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the petition till the date of realization.
2. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the
Investigating Officer before the learned Tribunal, which was converted
into claim petition under Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'MV Act'). Since the case was not
settled by the appellant/Insurance Company, the claim petition was
accordingly contested denying the allegations raised therein.
3. The learned Tribunal neither framed any issue on negligence on
the part of the driver/respondent No.4 of the offending vehicle on the
accident in question nor respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants preferred to
lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal to prove the rash and
negligent driving by the respondent No.4. Thus, the learned Tribunal
has erred in passing the impugned award without framing and deciding
the issue on negligence.
4. As per Section 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, once
the claimants declined to accept the legal offer of the appellant, then as
per sub-Section (6) of Section 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed
Procedure, the learned Tribunal was bound to conduct an inquiry under
Sections 168 and 169 of MV Act, and thereafter, only it could have
passed an award after appreciating the evidence on record.
5. Moreover, in the case of Minu B. Mehta Vs. Balakrishna
Ramachandra Nayar, 1977 (2) SCC 441, Full Bench of the Apex
Court has held that it is incumbent upon the claimants to prove
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle to hold the owner of
the vehicle vicariously liable for the act of a driver and that proof of
negligence remained the lynchpin to recover compensation.
6. The similar issue came before this Court in the case of MAC. A.
No.503/2012 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Smt. Reshnu Nisha & Ors., decided by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court on 17.12.2012.
7. Keeping in view the settled law that the Detailed Accident
Report had to be inquired into; and thereafter, considered as a claim
petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. It can be safely
inferred that the learned Tribunal has acted with illegality in passing
the impugned order dated 18.04.2012. The same, therefore, cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside.
8. The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the
concerned Tribunal for its decision in accordance with law. It is
expected from the Tribunal to decide this case on priority basis not
later than three months from today.
9. The parties are at liberty to lead evidence after framing of issues
by the learned Tribunal.
10. The amount of compensation deposited shall be refunded to the
appellant/Insurance Company.
11. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- shall be refunded to the
appellant/Insurance Company.
12. Pending application also stands disposed of.
13. TCR be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.
SURESH KAIT, J.
OCTOBER 09, 2013
sb
