Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Ram Ishwar Singh & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP.No. 754/2011 & CM No.15711/2011 (for stay)
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
Advocate.
Versus
RAM ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Arvind Kumar Patel,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.
1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP.No. 754/2011
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
07.06.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
tune of Rs.10,26,872/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued that the deceased Ajit Singh had not died due to the
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as there was contributory
negligence on his part too.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.03.2008 at about 5.30 am the
deceased was standing near his Tata Sumo bearing No. DLIVB4491 when a
Truck bearing No. RJ14GB4527 loaded with the sugar bags driven by
respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit one Radio Taxi bearing
No. DL1RX6090. Due to forceful impact of the accident, the loaded truck
fell on the road and the sugar bags fell on an Indica Car bearing No.
DLIVSA8527, which was passing from there at that time. One sugar bag
also fell on the deceased as a result of which he died on the spot.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that though the accident had taken
place between Radio Taxi bearing No. DL1RX6090 and the offending Truck
bearing No. RJ14GB4527, but the learned Tribunal has failed to establish
the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of other vehicles.
Moreover, the deceased was standing on the roadside near his TATA Sumo
at that time and had also contributed in the accident in question. Hence,
while awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered the aspect of contributory negligence as well.
5. It is not in dispute that FIR was lodged at P.S. Gurgaon under
Sections 279/304-A IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of the offending
vehicle, i.e., Truck bearing No. RJ14GB4527.
6. The respondents/claimants have examined Shri Ram Ishwar Singh as
PW1, who tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. He proved
the FIR Ex. PW1/A, final report Ex. PW1/B, list of witnesses Ex.PW1/C,
statement of the complainant Ex. PW1/D, site plan Ex.PW1/E, death report
of the deceased Ex. PW1/F, the receipt of dead body Ex. PW1/G, post-
mortem report Ex. PW1/H, mechanical inspection report of the offending
vehicle Ex.PW1/I, the insurance of the vehicle in question Ex.PW1/J,
driving licence of the respondent No. 1 Ex.PW1/K, RC of the offending
vehicle Ex. PW1/L and petition Ex. PW1/M.
7. It is also not in dispute that a criminal case was registered on the
complaint of one Sanjay, i.e., driver of Radio Taxi bearing No. DL1RX6090.
However, no complaint regarding his false implication in the case was filed
by the driver of the offending vehicle to the Higher Authorities. It is also
not disputed that Radio Taxi as noted above was not met with an accident
with the offending vehicle. The statement of complainant Sanjay has been
proved by PW1 as Ex.PW1/D.
8. For establishing the negligence of the offending vehicle, the learned
Tribunal has relied upon the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pushpa Rana & Anr., 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it is held as under:-
"Negligence-evidence-admissibility of document-certified copy
of criminal court, such as, FIR, recovery memo and
mechanical inspection report of vehicle and documents of
sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that driver was
negligent-proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin
to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence
are not required to be followed in this regard."
9. On perusal of the record, it is established that as per site plan
Ex.PW1/3, mark 'A' is the place where the offending Truck bearing No.
RJ14GB4527 found turtle in an accidental condition and mark 'B' is the
place where the dead body of the deceased was found.
10. The fact remains that the deceased was standing on the side of the
road whereas the accident had taken place on the road itself. Thus, the
deceased had not contributed negligence in the accident. It is also true that
the deceased was died due to falling of the sugar bag from the offending
Truck which met with an accident with other vehicle, i.e, Radio Taxi as
noted above.
11. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and accordingly, the respondents/claimants have proved the
certified copies of criminal record, i.e., FIR registered under Sections
279/304-A IPC at P.S. Gurgaon, as well as the charge sheet, statement of the
eye witnesses, site plan, post-mortem report of the deceased and mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle noted above to establish the
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, being driven rashly and
negligently at the time of the accident.
12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground in the
instant appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.
13. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
balance compensation amount alongwith upto date interest accrued thereon
in favour of the respondents/claimants on taking necessary steps by them.
CM No.15711/2011 (for stay)
With the dismissal of the instant appeal, this application has become
infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 28, 2014
Sb/jg
