Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Dinesh Singh & Anr. on 7 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 7th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 664/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
Versus
DINESH SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. S.K. Pandey and
Ms. Tarannum, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. 664/2012
1. The Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 12.03.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.1,94,554/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
offending vehicle was stolen in the year 2007. The police had filed the
untraced report. Thereafter, the appellant / Insurance Company settled the
claim with the owner of the offending vehicle. Thereafter on 09.07.2009,
the accident in question had taken place in which respondent no. 1
sustained injuries while going on his motorcycle no. DL-7SS-2911, which
was hit by offending vehicle bearing No. DL-7S-AE-6468, driven by its
driver at a high speed rashly and negligently.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that offending vehicle was a Scooter,
whereas R1W1 Sh. Rakesh Khurana, erstwhile owner has deposed that he
was a registered owner of Motorcycle no. DL-7S-AE-6468. Ld. Counsel
further submits that PW1, Sh. Dinesh Singh stated that Scooter No. DL-
7AE-6484 was involved in the accident which is also mentioned in the
police record, whereas the registered owner, as noted above, stated that it
was a motorcycle.
4. I note, R1W1, Sh. Rakesh Khurana given the number of the offending
vehicle as DL-7S-AE-6468 and the same number has also been mentioned
by PW1 Sh. Dinesh Singh. In the criminal case, police has also recorded
the same number. The only difference is that PW1 and Police said that it
was scooter, whereas in testimony of R1W1 Sh. Rakesh Khurana it was
recorded that he was owner of motorcycle, however, number of offending
vehicle given by all the witnesses is same.
5. I am of the considered opinion, position would have been different if
R1W1 Sh. Rakesh Khurana gave different number of the motorcycle, but in
the present case, R1W1 had given the same number, however, recorded as
motorcycle. Sometimes, in colloquial language, some persons call it a
scooter, some call it motorcycle and some call it two-wheeler. Therefore, it
makes no difference when persons are indicating to a particular vehicle and
that is with same number.
6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Same
is accordingly dismissed.
7. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the
balance compensation amount be released in favour of the respondent /
injured.
CM. NO. 10907/2012
With the dismissal of the instant appeal itself, instant application has
become infructuous and dismissed as such.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 07, 2014
jg /sb
