Delhi High Court
Master Dhruv Mehta vs Virender Singh & Ors. on 20 March, 2015
$~6 to 9 & 11 to 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th March, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 313/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv. with
Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv. &
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv. for R-1 &
R-2.
Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-3
& R-4.
+ MAC.APP. 318/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv. with
Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv. &
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-3
& R-4.
+ MAC.APP. 335/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv. with
Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv. &
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv. for R-1
MAC. APP. No. 313/2011 Etc. Page 1 of 8
Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-3
& R-4.
+ MAC.APP. 363/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv. with
Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv. &
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SUNIL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv. for R-1 &
R-2.
Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-3
& R-4.
+ MAC.APP. 450/2012
MASTER DHRUV MEHTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-1
& R-2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3
Insurance Company.
+ MAC.APP. 490/2012
MASTER DHRUV MEHTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-1
& R-2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3
Insurance Company.
MAC. APP. No. 313/2011 Etc. Page 2 of 8
+ MAC.APP. 491/2012
MASTER DHRUV MEHTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-1
& R-2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3
Insurance Company.
+ MAC.APP. 495/2012
MASTER DHRUV MEHTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamindha Kadian, Adv. for R-1
& R-2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3
Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These eight appeals arise out of an accident which occurred on
20.04.2008 between a Trolla bearing registration no.HR-46C-0308
and Santro Car bearing registration no.DL-4CP-0670. It appears that
the eight Claim Petitions were filed both by the injured/legal
representatives of the deceased for recovery of compensations.
2. Four Claim Petitions came up to be decided by four separate
judgments dated 25.01.2012 by Mr. Chandra Bose, Presiding Officer
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), Rohini,
Delhi, whereas the other four Claim Petitions were decided by four
separate orders dated 04.02.2011 passed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Aggarwal, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West
District, Delhi posted at Tis Hazari, Delhi.
3. Two separate sets of decisions have led to an anomalous situation, in
as much as the extent of negligence held by the respective Claims
Tribunals is different. FIR No.88/2008 was recorded in respect of the
accident at Police Station Parao, District Ambala. As per the
allegations made in the FIR, on the fateful day, i.e. on 20.04.2008, Mr.
Rajeev Mehta was travelling along with his family members in his
Santro car bearing registration no.DL-4CP-0670 from Phagwara to
Delhi. When the Santro car reached Mohra Dukheri Mor, a Trolla
bearing registration no.HR-46C-0308 was found to be wrongly parked
on the road without any indication. The Santro car driven by Rajeev
Mehta dashed in the rear portion of the Trolla, as a result of which the
driver of the Santro car Rajeev Mehta, Anju Mehta, Parul, Kamla
Devi, Rozi Dutta, Sara and Lara, daughters of Late Shri Rajesh and
Piyush, son of Late Shri Rajesh suffered fatal injuries, whereas three
other children travelling in the Santro car suffered injuries.
4. On appreciation of evidence in Claim Petitions bearing MACT
Nos.399/8, 400/8, 401/8 and 402/8 concerning MAC APP.450/2012,
490/2012, 491/2012 and MAC APP.495/2012 respectively, the Claims
Tribunal reached the finding that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the driver Rajeev Mehta of Santro Car bearing registration
no.DL-4CP-0670. Consequently, in MACT No.399/8, (MAC
APP.450/2012), the award of compensation of `15,47,416/- was
reduced to 50%, the liability of paying the same of the insurer of
Trolla bearing registration no.HR-46C-0308.
5. On the other hand, in four Claim Petitions being MACT Nos.579/08,
578/2008, 580/2008 and 577/08 concerning MAC APP.313/2011,
318/2011, 335/2011 and 363/2011 respectively, it seems that the eye
witness was not produced and hence, by four separate judgments
relying on Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New India Assurance
Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the Claims Tribunal held that
there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Trolla bearing
registration no.HR-46C-0308. Consequently, the compensation
awarded was directed to be paid by the driver-owner of the Trolla and
in turn by its insurance company, Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited.
6. In MAC APP. 313/2011, 318/2011, 335/2011 and 363/2011, the
finding on negligence is challenged by the Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited whereas in MAC APP.450/2012, 490/2012,
491/2012 and 495/2012, wherein the contributory negligence of the
driver of the Santro car has been found by the Claims Tribunal, the
finding on negligence is challenged by the victims/legal
representatives of the victims.
7. It appears that the filing of the four Claim Petitions in West District
and four Claim Petitions in North-West District escaped the attention
of the concerned Claims Tribunals, although the Claimants/legal
representatives of the deceased were close family members. The
factum of eight Claim Petitions arising out of the same accident was
not brought to the notice of the Claims Tribunals which has resulted
into contradictory findings.
8. The only option which now appears is that the impugned orders have
to be set aside and all the eight Claim Petitions have to be tried
together so that there may not be any contradictory findings. The
impugned orders are therefore, set aside and all the eight Claim
Petitions are remanded back to the Claims Tribunal.
9. All the Claim Petitions shall be tried by a Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal of the West District. The learned District and Sessions Judge,
West Delhi shall assign the eight Claim Petitions to the Claims
Tribunal working in the District.
10. In some of the Claim Petitions, the entire amount has been released
whereas in other Claim Petitions, part of the amount has been
released. The amount lying deposited in the Court shall be
released/refunded to the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited. The amount of compensation which has been released shall
be subject to the orders that may be passed by the Claims Tribunal.
11. It is directed that the Claims Tribunal shall decide the question on
negligence, quantum of compensation and the liability afresh. There
will not be any bar for impleadment of any party/parties in the Claim
Petitions.
12. Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
13. Trial Court record shall also be transmitted to the District and Sessions
Judge, West Delhi.
14. It is expected that the Claim Petitions shall be disposed of
expeditiously and in any case, within a period of four months from the
date of first appearance.
15. All the parties shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the
Claim Petitions. Parties shall be entitled to raise all the issues afresh
in respect of compensation and liability.
16. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited in MAC
APP.313/2011, 318/2011, 335/2011 and 363/2011 respectively.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
18. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal to
whom the cases may be assigned on 10.04.2015.
19. A copy of the order shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal as also
to the District and Sessions Judge, West Delhi.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2015
vk
