Delhi High Court
Reliance Generla Insurance Co. ... vs Reema & Ors on 24 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 418/2011
RELIANCE GENERLA INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
Versus
REEMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. M.M. Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 03.02.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a
sum of Rs.14,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
institution of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that accident
had taken place on 15.08.2010 near Sanjay 'T' Point, Palam More, Dhaula
Kuan-Gurgaon Road, when offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1R-Y-2012
was in a static condition and the Maruti Omini Van No. DL-3C-BL-0688 hit
the said vehicle.
3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that respondent nos. 6 & 7, i.e., driver
and owner of the offending vehicle had filed reply to the claim petition,
wherein it was stated that the accident in question was caused due to rash
and negligent driving of Maruti Omini Van No. DL-3C-BL-0688, in which
the deceased was travelling.
4. Respondent nos. 6 & 7 had taken a defence in their written statement
that the wind screen of their vehicle was suddenly broken, due to which,
they stopped the car on the road. Thereafter, they immediately switched on
the parking blinkers and parked the car on the right side of the road. After
parking the car, they put the hazard triangle (flashers) behind the stationed
car on the road for the safety of the coming vehicles. Suddenly, the Maruti
Omni Van as noted above came and hit the stationary car from behind
without caring the hazard triangle placed on the road behind the stationary
car and the parking lights.
5. The appellant in its written statement had taken the preliminary
objection before the Ld. Tribunal that the manner of accident and the rough
site plan show that driver of the Maruti Omini van was driving it rashly and
negligently, despite that Ld. Tribunal has not assessed any contributory
negligence on the part of the said Maruti Omini Van.
6. Ld. Tribunal has framed Issue no. 1 as under:
"1. Whether Kunjesh, Son of Lalit Mohan Singh received fatal
injuries in an accident on 15.08.2010 due to rash and negligent
driving of Maruti Esteem bearing registration no. DL-1TY-2012
by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no. 3? OPP.
7. Undisputedly, both the vehicles noted above were badly damaged.
Police had issued notice Ex.1/22 under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1948, to respondent no. 7 to disclose the details of the driver of the
offending vehicle, to which replied that it was respondent no. 6, who was
charge sheeted by the police under Section 279/304A IPC vide report
Ex.PW1/11.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not examine any witness to
prove that respondent nos. 6 & 7 put hazard triangle behind the stationary
car. Even if it is believed that the offending vehicle was standing at the right
side of the road, it was (standing) on a dangerous position. The accident had
taken place on Delhi-Gurgaon Road, whereon there is always a heavy traffic.
If there was any problem to the offending vehicle, respondent no. 6 should
have parked the vehicle on the left side of the road, which would have saved
the accident in question. Moreover, the police has not prosecuted the driver
of Maruti Omini Van for his negligent driving.
9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit on this issue,
same is accordingly dismissed.
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has raised another issue that Ld.
Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- as pleader's fee, which is not permissible
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1948.
11. The issue of pleader's fee and out of pocket expenses has been
decided by this Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Kanti Devi & Ors., on 30.07.2012, wherein it is held that Ld.
Tribunal has no power to grant pleader's fee and out of pocket expenses.
12. Therefore, in view of the dictum of this Court in the case of Kanti
Devi & Ors. (Supra), award dated 03.02.2011 is set aside to that extent.
13. Accordingly, statutory amount with excess amount of Rs.15,000/-
alongwith proportionate interest be released in favour of the appellant and
balance compensation amount be released in favour of the respondents /
claimants on taking steps by them.
14. In view of above, instant appeal stands disposed of.
CM. No. 9346/2011
With the disposal of the instant appeal itself, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2014
Jg/sb
