Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Naresh Kumar & Ors on 22 April, 2016
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 319/2015 & CM Nos.6195/2015 & 9058/2016
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.
versus
NARESH KUMAR & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 05.01.2015, the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) awarded compensation in the sum of ₹46,01,125/- with interest
at 7.5% per annum in favour of the respondent (the claimant) on account of
injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident that occurred on
19.09.2009 involving negligent driving of motor vehicle tempo TATA-407
bearing registration No.DL 1LG 7877 (the offending vehicle), admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company
(insurer) for the period in question. The appellant (insurer) having admitted
liability to indemnify was burdened with the liability to satisfy the award
and has come up with the appeal at hand taking exception to the income of
the claimant having been accepted at ₹6,500/- per month on the basis of
document (Ex.PW1/C), purportedly a salary certificate produced by the
claimant himself in the course of his testimony. The insurance company
also raises the issue of interest being awarded on the non-pecuniary heads
of damages. During the course of arguments, question arose as to whether
the proof of income from the private employment, as pleaded by the
claimant, by mere production of document (Ex.PW1/C) could have been
accepted. The learned counsel for the claimant fairly conceded that the
representative of the employer company should have been called as a
witness to prove the said employment and while agreeing to the objection
of the insurance company, to this effect, he also submitted that the claimant
has been suffering complications and continues to be undergoing further
treatment which has resulted in additional medical expenditure having been
incurred for which he seeks liberty to adduce further evidence.
2. In above facts and circumstances, both the insurer and the claimant
fairly agree with the issue of computation of compensation be remitted to
the tribunal for further inquiry wherein both sides may be granted liberty to
produce additional evidence.
3. By order dated 20.04.2015, while issuing notice on the appeal, and
considering the request for stay, it was noted, on the submissions made by
the insurer, that the amount of compensation awarded had already been
recovered by the tribunal through attachment. By the said order, ₹20 lakhs
was allowed to be released to the claimant from out of the amount realized
by the tribunal, the balance directed to be retained in fixed deposit for a
period of one year to be renewed from time to time during the pendency of
the appeal.
4. The joint request is allowed. The impugned judgment insofar as it
determined the amount of compensation payable and the terms thereof is
set aside. The matter to that extent is remitted to the tribunal for further
inquiry and fresh adjudication, inter alia, by allowing both the parties to
lead further evidence in accordance with law. The amount already released
to the claimant shall be liable to be adjusted against the award that is
eventually passed at the conclusion of the proceedings to be now further
held. The balance amount out of the amount realized by attachment
presently held in fixed deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
branch, New Delhi shall be transferred by the Registrar General to the
tribunal for being availed of to satisfy the award as is now expected to be
passed. Needless to add, if the amount lying in deposit is in excess of what
is held to be given in compensation, after adjusting the amount already
paid, the same shall be refunded and conversely if it is found to be
deficient, the insurance company shall be duty bound to pay the balance.
The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 23.05.2016.
5. Given the nature of the injuries suffered and their after-effect, it is
desirable that the inquiry hereby remitted is concluded expeditiously. The
tribunal shall make all endeavours to do so and the parties shall be duty
bound to render full cooperation. Preferably, the tribunal must conclude
and pass the fresh judgment within six months of the date hereby fixed for
first appearance.
6. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
7. Tribunal's record shall be returned.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 22, 2016
VLD
