New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Reena Devi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3967 Del

$~6
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%             Judgment delivered on: 5th September, 2013

+      MAC.APP. 333/2010
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.             ..... Appellant
                 Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary and
                 Mr. Shantanu Bhardwaj, Advs.

                     versus

REENA DEVI & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                              Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for R8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Instant appeal has been preferred while challenging the impugned award dated 27.01.2010, whereby ld. Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant and respondent no. 8, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no. 8 has not challenged the said award.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the appeal mainly on the ground that in the accident in question a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.DL-3CQ-3565 had hit the Truck-Trailer bearing Registration No.HR-55-6995 and thereafter in repulsive action the said car came back and hit the Truck bearing Registration no. RJ-19G-5232, which was insured with the appellant.

4. Ld. Counsel submits that first of all the said truck which is insured with the appellant was neither at fault nor at a high speed and nor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The whole liability should have been fastened upon the Truck-Trailer bearing Registration No. HR-55-6995, whereas the ld. Tribunal has fastened 50% contributory negligence on both the vehicles mentioned above.

5. Ld. Counsel further submits the said Maruti car crossed the vehicle insured with the appellant and thereafter the Truck-Trailer Registration No. HR-55-6995 insured with the respondent no. 8 hit the said Car and thereafter it hit the truck insured with the appellant. Therefore, there was no fault of the truck insured with the appellant and the ld. Tribunal has erred in fastening the 50% liability upon the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is seeking complete exoneration from the said liability.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2006, at about 4 PM, deceased Joginder Singh was going to Jaipur from Delhi by Car bearing Registration NO. DL-3CQ-3565. When he reached near the foot bridge of Manohar Pur and had crossed the truck bearing Registration no. RJ-19G-5232 and had reached the right direction of the road, at the same time, a truck-trailer bearing Registration No. HR-55-6995 came from the opposite direction at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner had hit the car of the deceased. Thereafter the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-19G-5232 had also hit the car near the foot bridge of Manohar Pur (Rajasthan). As a result thereof, 3 persons including the deceased Joginder Singh

received injuries. They were taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where driver of the car Joginder Singh was declared dead.

7. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. submitted that PW1 Smt. Reena Devi, wife of the deceased has blamed both the vehicles for the death of Joginder Singh. She deposed that on 13.05.2006, at about 4 PM, deceased Joginder Singh was going to Jaipur from Delhi by Car bearing Registration NO. DL-3CQ-3565. When he reached near the foot bridge of Manohar Pur and had crossed the offending truck bearing Registration no. RJ-19G-5232 and had reached the right direction of the road, at the same time the offending truck-trailer bearing Registration No. HR-55-6995 had come driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car of the deceased. She specifically stated that thereafter the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-19G-5232 had also hit the car near the foot bridge of Manohar Pur (Rajasthan). As a result thereof, all the 3 persons received injuries however, the deceased Joginder Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the statement of Sh. Rajan Singh, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he categorically stated that all of a sudden truck-trailer bearing Registration No. HR-55-6995 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Maruti Car due to which the Truck no. RJ-19G-5232 coming from behind also hit the Maruti Car.

9. Admittedly, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and charge sheet was thereafter filed against him.

10. In my considered opinion, Ld. Tribunal while relying upon the criminal record has enquired the matter and applied its mind. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the accident took place, the ld. Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on both the vehicles involved in the accident in question.

11. According to traffic rules and norms, every driver of the vehicle when he is on the highway is supposed to maintain distance between the two vehicles and should take all necessary precautions so that such unforeseen circumstances/accidents may be avoided.

12. Had the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. RJ-19G- 5232 applied brakes when the Maruti car was hit by the truck-trailer bearing registration no. HR-55-6995, the deceased would have received less injury and his life could have been saved.

13. Moreover, the appellant had led no evidence to rebut what the PW1 had stated. Even Rajan Singh has also specifically stated in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that first, the Maruti Car was hit by the truck-trailer HR-55-6995, thereafter, the offending truck RJ-19G-5232 also hit the Maruti car.

14. In view of above, I do not find any discrepancy in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

15. Consequently, statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.

16. I note, vide order dated 20.05.2010, appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the liability with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi.

17. Since the appeal has been dismissed, therefore, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch is directed to release the amount with interest accrued thereon in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of award dated 27.01.2010.

CM. No. 9488/2010 With the disposal of the petition itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

SURESH KAIT, J

SEPTEMBER 05, 2013 Jg/RS