M/S. United India Insuance Co. ... vs Gurbachan Singh And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 569 Del

$~R15
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment delivered on: 29th January, 2014


+      MAC.APP. 835/2006


M/S. UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO. LTD.      ..... Appellant
                    Represented by: Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. for
                    Mr. A.K. De, Adv.

                   Versus

GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS.               ..... Respondents
                 Represented by: NEMO.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 03.04.2006, whereby ld. Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.72,500/- for the injuries received by respondent no. 1 and Rs.46,450/- towards the damages to the Maruti Car No. DL-2CC-7834.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on 29.09.2004, while driving Maruti Car NO. DL-2CC-7834, respondent no. 1 met with an accident with TATA LP Truck No. DL-1GB-8060. He received injuries in the said accident and spent Rs.63,000/-. The bills are Ex.PW1/5 to PW1/13.

3. Respondent no. 1 also claimed that he spent Rs.46,450/- on his car,

which also got damaged in the said accident.

4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant does not dispute the award granted for the injuries received by respondent no. 1. However, only challenging the amount of Rs.46,450/- awarded qua the damage of the Maruti van.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court to the Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein it is specifically stated that application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section 1 of Section 165 may be made by a person, who has sustained the injuries or by the owner of the property.

6. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the present case, one Manoj Kumar was the owner of the Maruti Car bearing no. DL-2CC-7834 and registration certificate of the said Car was issued on 13.07.1992. The same is on record at page 22 of the paper book.

7. Ld. Counsel submitted that respondent no.1/claimant asserted before the Tribunal that he had spent the amount on the said car. Fact remains that he was a driver on the said vehicle. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has erred in granting compensation for damage of car.

8. He further submitted that qua the injuries, the injured person can claim and qua the property, only owner of the property can claim the compensation.

9. The registration certificate is at Page 22 of the paper book, which shows that Manoj Kumar, S/o, Tilak Raj, R/o, A-275, Gulabi Bagh, New

Delhi was the owner of the Maruti Van No. DL-2CC-7834 and the said vehicle was registered on 13.07.1992 with the Licencing Authority, New Delhi. Respondent no. 1 has not placed any document on record to show that he was the owner of the said Maruti Car.

10. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted Rs.46,450/- qua the damages to the said car.

11. In view of above, the award amount is reduced to Rs.73,550/- (Rs.1,20,000 - Rs.46,450).

12. In view of above, appeal is allowed.

13. Statutory amount and excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant.

14. Balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondent no. 1 / claimant.

SURESH KAIT, J.

JANUARY 29, 2014 jg