United India Insurance Co Ltd. vs Samay Singh & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7341 Del

$~10 & 11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of decision: December 08, 2016

(i)    +    MAC.APP. 339/2011

       MANOJ BHATIA                                   ..... Appellant
                       Through:     Mr. N.L. Sahai, Advocate

                       Versus

       RAFIQUE ALAM & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                    Through:        Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate for
                                    respondent No.4


(ii)   +    MAC.APP. 23/2012

       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.           ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate

                       Versus

       SAMAY SINGH & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                    Through:        Mr. B.K. Pandey, Advocate for
                                    respondents No.1a & 1b
                                    Mr. N.L.Sahai, Advocate for
                                    respondent No.4
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                     JUDGMENT

% ORAL

C.M.No. 229/2012 (u/S 5 of The Limitation Act r/w Sec. 151 CPC) In MAC.APP. 23/2012

There is delay of 227 days in filing the accompanying appeal. As per order of 29th September, 2015, service is complete. Upon hearing, I find that the averments made in paragraphs No. 3 & 4 of this application provide sufficient cause to condone the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and delay is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

C.M.No. 230/2012 (for stay) in MAC.APP. 23/2012

Learned counsel for appellant-insurer submits that interim order of 6th January, 2012 has been complied with. It is so evident from the order of 23rd March, 2012.

In view of the above, interim order of 6 th January, 2012 is made absolute.

Application is disposed of.

MAC.APP. 339/2011 MAC.APP. 23/2012

1. Impugned Award of 15th January, 2011 grants compensation of `5,73,456/- with interest to respondent-claimant while granting recovery rights qua respondent- M/S Pemium Insurance Brokers (henceforth referred to as the „Broker‟). In the above captioned first appeal, the Broker challenges the impugned Award on the ground that the liability to pay compensation is of the Insurer and not of Broker. In the above captioned second appeal, the stand taken by appellant-insurer is that the liability to pay compensation ought to have been fastened upon the

Broker and not the Insurer.

2. Since the above captioned two appeals arise out of impugned Award, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts, which are not disputed, as noted in the impugned Award, are as under:-

"Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as injured) was preparing tea in his tea stall adjoining to bus stand Sagar Pur, Pankha Road, New Delhi. At about 3:00 am., there came an Indica Car Taxi bearing registration no.DL-1Y-9571 from the side of Aggarwal Sweets. It was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly, negligently and in a high speed. It struck the bus stand with a great force and then the petitioner. His left leg was crushed which was amputated later on."

4. At the final hearing of these appeals, challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for Insurer is on the ground that since Insurer had not received the premium, so there was no occasion for saddling the insurance company with the liability to pay compensation and so, the impugned Award deserves to be modified while putting the liability on the Broker to pay the awarded amount. Nothing else is urged on behalf of Insurer.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Broker submits that the grant of recovery rights to appellant is unjustified in view of the fact that Broker has already received the commission qua the insurance policy in

question and so, the liability ought to be put on the Insurer to pay the awarded amount. He further submits that the Principal, who had appointed the Broker is Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) and not the Insurer. But on query put to him, it is revealed that no such stand was taken by the Insurer in the evidence led. Nothing else is urged on behalf of Broker.

6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order as well as evidence on record, I find that in view of the terms of insurance policy, right of recovery is granted to Insurer. It is so said because the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a social legislation and the claimants cannot be made to wait indefinitely to receive the compensation due.

7. Right of recovery is an equitable right, which is granted in such like cases to facilitate prompt grant of compensation to the claimants in deserving cases. Therefore, grant of recovery rights to the Insurer cannot be faulted with. Such a view is being taken as a bare perusal of evidence of the Broker reveals that the cover note alongwith the requisite premium was not deposited with the Insurer. Merely because commission was received by the Broker would not give any right to the Broker to avoid the liability to pay the awarded compensation. It is being so said because the Broker has failed to produce the proof of deposit of the premium amount with the insurer.

8. Simply because the Broker was appointed by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) would not snap the relationship between the Insurer and the Broker. The quantum of compensation granted appears to be reasonable.

9. Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the above captioned two appeals. Resultantly, while maintaining the impugned Award, both these appeals are dismissed.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 08, 2016 r/s