New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Krishna Devi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1487 Del

$~5
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Date of Decision: 24th February, 2016
+      MAC.APP. 244/2011
       NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD            ..... Appellant
                    Through: Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.

                        versus

       KRISHNA DEVI & ORS                             ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Mr. Shashank Singh with Mr. F.K.
                                      Jha, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                   JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. By judgment dated 02.12.2010, the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) decided the motor accident claims petition no.210A/10 awarding compensation in the sum of `8,48,456/- with interest in favour of the first and second respondent herein (collectively the claimants). The insurance company (appellant) was directed to pay the said amount since it had admittedly issued insurance policy against third party risk respecting bus bearing no.DL-1PB-1391 (offending vehicle).

2. The appellant insurance company had been impleaded in the proceedings before the tribunal with Satbir Singh and Surender Singh described as driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle. Since the claim petition was filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act), the burden of proof of negligence in driving of the offending

vehicle as the cause of accident was placed by the first issue framed by the tribunal on the claimants. The tribunal noted in the impugned judgment that no witnesses had been examined, yet it decided the issue in favour of the claimants holding the driver (respondent) to be responsible leading to liability being fastened on the insurance company to indemnify the owner who was found to be vicariously liable.

3. By appeal at hand, insurance company pointed out that the evidence not having been adduced, the finding recorded by the tribunal is perverse. Faced with this submission, it has been fairly conceded on behalf of the claimants that there was lack of diligence on their part in adducing proper evidence. It has been submitted that the eye witness was available and the claimants may now be allowed to produce him in order to discharge their burden. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that he has nothing to say on the request.

4. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter arising out of claim petition is remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry in accordance with law.

5. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.03.2016.

6. The tribunal shall give opportunity to the claimants to adduce additional evidence and also allow the respondents to produce evidence in rebuttal, before deciding the petition afresh.

7. By order dated 16.03.2011, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up to date interest with the Registrar General within the period specified in a fixed deposit account out of which seventy five percent (75%) was allowed to be released to the claimants. In the given circumstances, the claimants are allowed to retain the

amount already received though subject to final decision on the claim petition. The balance amount lying in fixed deposit receipt, however, shall be refunded by the Registrar General along with the statutory deposit to the insurance company.

8. Given the facts noted above, it is necessary that the tribunal takes expeditious decision on the claim petition. Therefore, it is directed that the tribunal shall make all endeavour to decide the claim petition afresh within six months from today.

9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 24, 2016/afa