National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sh. Manoj Kumar & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2349 Del

$~42 & 43

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 19th March, 2015
+        CM(M) 487/2014

         NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.            ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.

                            versus

         SH. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS                    ..... Respondents
                        Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to
                                 R-3.
+        CM(M) 488/2014

         NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD         ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.

                            versus

         SH. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS                  ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to
                               R-3.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. These two petitions arise out of the two separate Claim Petitions being

Suit no.422/13 and Suit no.424/13, arising out of a motor vehicular

accident which allegedly took place on 30.04.2013.

2. My learned Predecessor Judge had recorded the Petitioner's (National

Insurance Company Limited) contention in the order dated

23.05.2014. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that at this

stage it will be difficult to say whether vehicle No.DL-1LR-1262

which was insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company was

involved in the accident and, therefore, the order under Section 140 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) ought to have been deferred.

Paras 1,2 and 4 of the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by this Court are

extracted hereunder:-

"1. Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 19.05.2014, this Court stayed execution of the interim award dated 10.12.2013 till today. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the offending vehicle did not meet with the alleged accident. The informant of the FIR stated that on the date of the accident he did not note down the number of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, FIR No.87/2013 was registered against unknown person.

2. She further states that, thereafter, after two months of the accident, the informant approached the Police Station concerned and made a statement that he had noted the number of the offending vehicle on some slip which he could not produce on the date of the accident and stated that respondent no. 3 Jagdish Parihar was driving the offending vehicle on that day and due to his rash and negligent driving Surdner Singh died in the accident.

x x x x x x x x x x

4. Learned counsel further submits that vide communication dated 22.05.2014, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Engineer, Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Investigator reported to the Manager of the petitioner Company as under:-

"There I met him and asked about the incident but he could not provide any documentary evidence which confirmed that his vehicle was involved in the said incident, I also told him that in the said incident two persons has died who were

travelling in the Car DL 5 CJ 0528. Then your vehicle was also damaged in the said incident, so you got repaired your vehicle, so please provide repairing bill of his vehicle but he could not provided. I also inquired why you are present on the spot early in the morning because you are living in Karawal Nagar, but he also not provided any satisfactory answer for the presence on the spot.

Then I told please provide all the information about the incident but he refused to give and told that it will be provided in the court only."

3. Learned counsel for the Respondents states that without admitting the

averments made by the Petitioner, the Respondents (the Claimants)

have no objection to deferring of the order under Section 140 of the

Act and an appropriate direction may be issued for the Claims

Tribunal for the expeditious disposal of the Claim Petitions.

4. In view of the contention raised and the statement made by the learned

counsel for the Respondents (the Claimants), order dated 23.05.2014

passed by my learned Predecessor under Section 140 of the Act is set

aside.

5. The Respondents (the Claimants) shall be entitled to request the

Claims Tribunal to pass an order under Section 140 of the Act after

recording the entire evidence of the Respondents (the Claimants), who

are the Petitioners before the Claims Tribunal.

6. Both the Petitions are allowed in above terms.

7. The Claims Tribunal is directed to dispose of the Claim Petitions

expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from the

date of hearing.

8. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on

04.04.2015, which is stated to be the next date fixed by the Claims

Tribunal.

9. Trial Court record be returned immediately through special

messenger.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

11. Dasti to the counsel for the parties.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 19, 2015 vk