Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Krishan & Anr. on 19 December, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th December, 2016
(i) + MAC.APP. 80/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate
Versus
ONIL KUMAR GULATI & ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
(ii) + MAC.APP. 1080/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate
Versus
ANMOL SETHI & ANR .... Respondents
Through: Nemo
(iii) + MAC.APP. 1081/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate
Versus
KRISHAN & ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
MAC.APP.80, 1080 & 1081 of 2012 Page 1 of 6
MAC.APP.381/2013
(iv) + MAC.APP. 381/2013
KRISHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(O R A L)
In the above captioned four appeals, the challenge is to grant
of compensation to injured-Onil Kumar Gulati, Anmol Sethi, who
were travelling in Innova and to Krishan, who was driving the said
Innova, which had met with an accident with a truck, which was
owned by Naveen Kumar Garg and was driven by Rewati Ram,
who is not a party in these appeals. The above-captioned three
appeals, are by Insurer of the truck whereas the above-captioned
fourth appeal is by driver of the Innova in question, in which
enhancement of compensation is sought. Service in these appeals
is complete.
The above-captioned four appeals relate to a road accident
which took place on 15th September, 2005 and so with the consent
MAC.APP.381/2013
of learned counsel for both the sides, the above-captioned four
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment.
The manner in which the accident in question took place is
already spelt out in the opening paragraph of the impugned award.
On account of injuries suffered by injured-Onil Kumar Gulati, he
has been granted compensation of `1,44,767/- with interest and its
break-up as per the impugned award is as under:-
(i) Medical Expenses : `91,500/-
(ii) Special Diet/Conveyance: `10,000/-
(iii) Attendant Charges : `7,500/-
(iv) Pain & Sufferings : `25,000/-
(v) Loss of Income : `10,767/-
Total : `1,44,767/-
On account of injuries sustained by injured-Anmol Sethi,
compensation of `36,775/- with interest has been granted.
Awarded amount granted to injured-Anmol Sethi comprises of
medical expenses of `25,000/- and `11775/- on account of loss of
income due to injuries sustained in the accident in question.
Driver-Krishan of the Innova had sustained injuries on his
right eye in this accident, which resulted in loss of vision in his
right eye which has been assessed to be 30% permanent physical
disability and compensation of `1,30,000/- with interest has been
MAC.APP.381/2013
granted to him on this account and break-up of the awarded
amount as per the impugned award is as under:-
(i) Medical Expenses : `15,000/-
(ii) Special Diet/Conveyance : `10,000/-
(iii) Attendant Charges : `5,000/-
(iv) Pain & Sufferings, loss of : `1,00,000/-
Amenities etc. (Composite
Amount under non-pecuniary head)
Total : `1,30,000/-
On the basis of evidence led by parties, the afore-noted
compensation has been granted in above-captioned first three
appeals and the challenge to the grant of compensation to
respondent-injured is on the ground that truck, which was insured
by appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was stationary and
the Innova in question, had struck against it and so there was no
negligence on the part of driver of the truck in question. Thus, it is
submitted by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer that the liability
to pay the compensation has been erroneously put upon appellant-
Insurer as it was Innova in question, which was the offending
vehicle. It is being so said by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer
on the strength of the copy of FIR, which is on record, which
indicates that driver of the Innova in question, was prosecuted in
respect of the accident in question. Lastly, it is submitted by
learned counsel for appellant-Insurer that since there was no
negligence on the part of truck driver and so there is no question of
MAC.APP.381/2013
enhancement of compensation as sought by driver of the Innova in
question. Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellant-Insurer.
On the other hand, learned counsel for driver of Innova in
question, submits that stand taken by appellant-Insurer in these
appeals cannot be taken for the reason that owner and driver of the
truck in question had contested the claim petition before learned
Tribunal and it is not the case of the appellant-Insurer that there
was no collusion between the claimants and the owner of truck in
question and that application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicle
Act was filed by appellant-Insurer and so, the plea of negligence
ought not to be considered in appeals preferred by appellant-
Insurer. To seek enhancement of compensation on behalf of driver
of the Innova in question, it is submitted that no compensation has
been granted by learned Tribunal on account of 30% permanent
disability suffered by injured-Krishan, driver of the Innova in
question and infact compensation of at least `2,00,000/- more
ought to be awarded to the driver of Innova in question. Nothing
else is urged on behalf of appellant-Krishan.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence
on record, I find that owner of truck in question had contested the
case before learned Tribunal and so appellant-Insurer is precluded
from challenging the impugned award on the ground lack of
negligence. Such a view is being taken because no application
under Section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by Insurer.
MAC.APP.381/2013
Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that there was
any collusion between owner of the vehicle in question and
claimants. Reliance placed by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer
upon FIR and the site plan of spot is of no avail, for the reason that
these documents have not been put in cross examination to driver-
Krishan, who was driving the Innova in question and so, finding of
negligence rendered in the impugned award cannot be faulted with.
Otherwise also, the quantum of compensation awarded to injured
appears to be reasonable.
Consequentially, the above-captioned three appeals filed by
appellant-Insurer are dismissed. As regards the above-captioned
fourth appeal, filed by injured-Krishan driver of the Innova in
question, I find that the compensation awarded to him under
different heads includes the compensation of `1 lac for the
permanent disability suffered by him under the head of loss of
amenities etc.. So, no case for enhancement of compensation
granted to injured-Krishan is made out. As such, above captioned
fourth appeal is also dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
DECEMBER 19, 2016
vn
MAC.APP.381/2013
