Radha Nigam vs Manas Bansal & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2468 Del

$~24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Judgment delivered on:15th May, 2014

+                              MAC.APP. 628/2011
RADHA NIGAM                                           ..... Appellant
                 Represented by:            Ms.Ruchi Kapoor, Advocate.
            Versus
MANAS BANSAL & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                 Represented by:            Mr.Satya Narayan, Advocate
                                            Respondent No.2.
                                            Mr.K.L. Nandwani, Advocate
                                            for Respondent No.3/Insurance
                                            Company.
                                            Ms.Monika for Mr.S.N.
                                            Prashar, Advocate for
                                            Respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/claimant has assailed the award dated 31.03.2011, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short 'MV Act') was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

2. The facts of this case are that on 14.03.2003, deceased Manish Nigam, i.e., son of the appellant alongwith three other friends were returning from Hayat Regency Hotel after attending the birthday party of their friend in a Baleno Car bearing No. DL 9CB 1071 driven by one of the friend of the deceased, namely, Manas Bansal, i.e, respondent No. 1 herein. The said Car collided with an Ambassador Car bearing No. DL 7CC 5301 at Prithvi Raj

Road, New Delhi, at about 11.55 pm, wherein the son of the appellant, i.e., Manish Nigam along with Anshul Khandelwal and Anish Jain died, whereas their fourth friend, namely, Chayan Gupta sustained grievous injuries.

3. For the deaths and injuries suffered by the persons noted above, the compensation was received by the claimants except for the death of son of the appellant as the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the deceased Manish Nigam was son of the owner of the offending vehicle, therefore, he being not a third party, was not entitled for any compensation.

4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2011, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal relied upon a case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jhuma Saha & Ors., 2007 ACJ 818, wherein held as under:-

"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 147 (1) Motor insurance Policy death of owner insured Liability of insurance company Death of owner-insured when the vehicle he was driving met with accident-Contention that additional premium for death of driver or conductor had been paid-Section 14 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of vehicle and no additional premium was paid to cover the risk-Whether insurance company is liable for the death of owner, insured-Held no. [2005 ACJ 1 (SC) relied]"

5. Also relied upon Section 147(1)(b) of MV Act and case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi 2008 ACJ 1441.

6. On perusal of the judgments mentioned above, I find that in above noted cases, the owners/insured of the vehicle was met with an accident while driving the vehicle, therefore, the owners were not held entitle for

compensation. Whereas, in the present case, the son of the insured died in the accident.

7. Keeping in mind the facts noted above, I have no hesitation in recording that while deciding the claim petition of the appellant, the learned Tribunal misread the aforementioned cases and wrongly applied the same in the case in hand. The deceased was son of the owner of the offending vehicle, therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation being a third party.

8. In view of the facts above noted, order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in Suit No.208/10 is set aside.

9. Consequently, the case is returned to the learned Tribunal for conducting fresh enquiry and for deciding the case on merits by giving opportunities to the parties concerned.

10. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Tribunal on 02.06.2014 for directions.

11. This Court expects from the learned Tribunal to decide the aforementioned claim petition within four months.

12. The instant appeal is allowed on the above terms.

13. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Tribunal for compliance.

SURESH KAIT, J.

MAY 15, 2014 Sb/jg