Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Kanta Devi & Ors. on 16 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 268/2013
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
KANTA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Neeraj Gupta,
Adv. for R1 and R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the award
dated 17.12.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a
sum of Rs.6,01,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till its realization.
2. Present appal has been filed mainly on the ground that there were
two dependents, i.e., parents, however, ld. Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd
instead of ½ towards personal expenses.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
sister cannot be considered as dependents, therefore, there were only
two dependents and ld. Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
4. The second ground urged in the appeal is that the vehicle was
plying without a valid permit and in that eventuality, appellant is not
liable to pay any compensation amount as directed by the ld. Tribunal.
5. So far as the issue of deduction towards personal expenses is
concerned, it is established from the record that deceased died at the
age of 26 years, left behind old parents and unmarried dependent sister.
The appellant / Insurance Company has not led any evidence contrary
to that. Moreover, not made any efforts to bring any witness on record
to prove the same during the pendency of the appeal.
6. Keeping the three dependents into view, I am of the considered
opinion that the ld. Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd income of the
deceased towards personal expenses.
7. Admittedly, recovery rights have not been granted.
8. As the issue of valid permit is concerned, the appellant /
insurance company has not taken any steps to serve respondent nos. 4
& 5, i.e., driver and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle.
9. Admitted fact is that during the pendency of the appeal
respondent no. 4 was expired and no steps have been taken to implead
his legal heirs.
10. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
since they are not disputing the driving licence, therefore, respondent
no. 4 is not a necessary party to adjudicate the instant appeal.
11. In view of the statement of the counsel for the appellant /
insurance company, appeal against respondent no. 4 is abated.
12. As far as service upon respondent no. 5 is concerned, the
appellant has not taken any steps to serve the aforesaid respondent
despite repeated opportunities.
13. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
they do not have the address of respondent no. 5, therefore, they are not
able to serve the said respondent.
14. It is on record that number of opportunities have already been
granted but the appellant / insurance company has not taken any steps
to serve respondent no. 5.
15. In view of above, instant appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
16. Consequently, balance compensation amount be released in
favour of the respondents / claimants.
17. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 16, 2014
jg
