Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Deepak Chauhan & Ors. on 1 April, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 1st April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 678/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L. K. Tyagi, Adv.
versus
DEEPAK CHAUHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Bhargavan, Adv. for R-
1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company has challenged the directions in the judgment
dated 16.02.2012 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) in
accident claim case of the first respondent (the claimant), registered as Suit
No. 322/2010, on the ground that the registered owner of the offending
vehicle , it being Tata truck bearing No. HR 38 H 9680 (the offending
vehicle), admittedly insured with it against third party risk, not having been
held liable, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to
indemnify.
2. On perusal, it is found that in the petition presented before the tribunal
besides the appellant insurance company (insurer) impleaded as third
respondent, Kanahaiya Yadav and Sunil C. Bomb were impleaded as first
and second respondents on the basis of averments that they were the driver
and owner respectively of the offending vehicle. The record further reveals
that the claimant subsequently moved an application furnishing fresh
particulars of the registered owner now describing him as Satinder Sirohi
and consequently amended the cause title on 26.02.2008. It is further noted
that, inspite of opportunities given, steps were not taken for service of the
said party (second respondent before the tribunal), the default eventually
resulting in order dated 27.04.2011 being passed by the tribunal dismissing
the petition against the said second respondent for non-prosecution.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that
the vehicle was insured in the name of Sunil C. Bomb whose name was
deleted and who stood substituted by Satinder Sirohi with whom the
insurance company had no privity of contract. It is argued that against the
aforementioned backdrop, the liability to pay compensation could not have
been fastened against the insurance company.
4. The original claimant Deepak Chauhan has since died. His legal heirs
have been substituted in his place. The learned counsel representing the said
legal heirs of original claimant submits that while the appeal of the
insurance company may be allowed and the judgment passed by the tribunal
may be set aside, the matter may be remitted to the tribunal so that the
registered owner of the offending vehicle and the person insured can be
made a party in order that the claimant's legitimate expectation of
compensation is not defeated.
5. In the interest of justice, the requests of both sides are allowed. The
impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the tribunal for
further proceedings in accordance with law, in light of above submissions.
6. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 2nd May, 2016.
7. By order dated 04.07.2012, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the awarded amount with upto date interest with the Registrar
General whereupon it was directed to held in fixed deposit with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch. The Registrar General shall presently refund the
said amount with accrued interest to the insurance company with statutory
deposit, if made.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 01, 2016
nk
