Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Chander Pal Singh & Ors. on 5 March, 2015
$-41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 303/2007
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate with
Ms. Neha Duggal, Advocate
versus
CHANDER PAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. G.P. Thareja, Advocate
with Mr. Satyam Thareja,
Advocate for Respondents no.1
to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
ORDER
05.03.2015
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2007
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims
Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted
in favour of Respondents no.1 to 4 for the death of Kapil Kumar
who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which
occurred on 20.03.2005.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant (ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.) that the Appellant is not
liable to pay the compensation at all as deceased Kapil Kumar
himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He
stepped into the shoes of the owner and he not being a third
party, the Appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.
Reliance is placed on Ningamma & Anr. v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 736. It is urged
that if the accident was caused on account of some mechanical
defect in the vehicle the risk was not covered.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents no.1 to
4 states that by an order dated 22.04.2006, the Respondents had
not given any consent to convert the petition to one under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was the
Claims Tribunal itself who converted the petition suo moto
under Section 163-A and then proceeded to award the
compensation. It is stated that the issue of negligence was not
even framed by the Claims Tribunal. It is urged that the
impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Respondents
(the Claimants) that the Claims Tribunal was not entitled to suo
moto convert the Petition under Section 166 to one under
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The impugned order therefore
cannot be sustained.
5. Since this was a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed and
frame an issue if the accident was caused on account of
negligence of the driver or the negligence of the owner of the
vehicle and will thereafter proceed to determine the
compensation.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on
23.03.2015.
7. The Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the claim
petition within three months of the date of the appearance of the
parties.
8. It may be noted that operation of the judgment dated 06.02.2007
was stayed by an order of this Court dated 22.05.2007.
Subsequently, by an order dated 08.09.2009, the awarded
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi and a sum of
Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be released to Respondents no. 1, 2
and 4 by transferring the said amount to their Saving Bank
Account. If the amount has not been released, the same shall
not be released to the Respondents. If any amount has been
released, it shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by
the Claims Tribunal. No further amount shall be released to the
Respondents.
9. The amount deposited along with interest and the interest
accrued during the pendency of the appeal shall be released to
the Appellant Insurance Company forthwith.
10. The statutory amount, if any, deposited shall also be released to
the Appellant Insurance Company.
11. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 05, 2015
pst
