Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd. vs Ravi Goel And Ors. on 7 April, 2016
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 298/2016& CM No.12954-56/2016
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
RAVI GOEL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Smt. Shanti Devi, aged 66 years at the relevant point of time, died as
a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred
on 21.12.2010 at about 11 p.m. involving negligent driving on the part of
the driver of tanker bearing registration no. HR 55 2626 (the offending
vehicle), insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer) for the period in question. Her children (two sons and
two daughters), all adults, filed an accident claim case (MACT case No.
57/2011) on 31.01.2011 under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (MV Act) seeking compensation impleading the insurer, driver and
owner of the offending vehicle.
2. The tribunal held inquiry clubbing the said case with other similarly
placed accident claim cases relating to the same motor vehicular accident.
By common judgment 22.12.2015, it was held that death had occurred on
account of negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The tribunal assessed
the compensation in the sum of ₹ 3,46,120/- and awarded the same in favour
of the claimants with interest and directed the insurer to pay though granting
it recovery rights having held that there was breach of terms and conditions
of the insurance policy inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding a valid or effective driving license and since there was no valid
permit held.
3. The insurance company by this appeal questions the computation on
the ground that the income of the deceased was wrongly assumed to be Rs.
6,000/- to calculate the loss of estate. It also submits that given the proof
about the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it should
have been exonerated from its liability to indemnify.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds
no substance in any of the contentions. The income notionally assessed is
closer home to the minimum wages payable at the relevant point of time
and, therefore, the loss of estate as calculated cannot be grudged. The
interest of the insurer is duly protected as it has been granted recovery
rights. There is no case made out for exoneration since that would adversely
affect the rights of the third party. [National Insurance Company V. Swaran
Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 & United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru
& Ors. (2003 3 SCC 338]
5. The appeals (with accompanying applications) is dismissed in limine.
6. Statutory amount, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2016/nk
