Delhi High Court
The New India Asssurance Co. Ltd. vs Keshanti & Ors. on 25 February, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th February, 2016
+ MAC APPEAL No.573/2012
THE NEW INDIA ASSSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
Versus
KESHANTI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
registered as Suit No. 990/2010, was preferred by the first respondent herein
seeking compensation on account of death of her husband Panchu Ram in a
motor vehicular accident involving two vehicles i.e. Rural Transport Vehicle
(RTV) bearing registration No. DL IVA 0639 driven by the second
respondent herein and owned by the third respondent herein, it admittedly
being insured against third party risk for the period in question with the
appellant herein (impleaded as party respondent No.3 in the claim petition)
and the other, also RTV bearing registration No. DL IV A 3314 driven by the
fourth respondent herein and owned by the fifth respondent herein. The
motor accident claims tribunal, by judgment dated 5th March, 2012, awarded
compensation in the sum of ` 5,26,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Since the accident had
occurred due to involvement of both the above mentioned vehicles, the
drivers of each along with their respective owners were held jointly and
severally liable. The appellant insurance company was held contractually
accountable. The appellant was directed to pay the entire compensation but
granted right to recover 50 % of the said awarded amount from the owner
(insured) of the other vehicle no. DL IVA 3314 i.e. the fifth respondent.
2. The grievance of the insurance company in appeal at hand is restricted
to the additional responsibility fastened on it to pay the entire awarded
compensation even though it had nothing to do with the other vehicle or with
its insurance. Since no insurance company was impleaded respecting the
said other vehicle, and the driver and owner of the said other vehicle also are
not shown to have claimed that it was covered under any insurance policy
against third party risk for the period in question, it is vivid that the owner of
the said other vehicle (i.e. fifth respondent herein) had no such insurance
policy on which he could expect to be indemnified with regard to his
liability.
3. In the facts and circumstances proved, the liability had to be shared
and appears to have been correctly apportioned in equal ratio between the
driver/owner of each vehicle. Thus, the liability in contract, and in law, of
the appellant insurance company is to indemnify only to the extent of 50 %
which is the liability fastened on the person insured in its respect.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the direction in the impugned judgment to
the appellant insurance company to pay the entire awarded compensation to
the claimants, though with liberty to recover the same from the fourth and
fifth respondents herein is set aside.
5. It is noted that in terms of the directions in order dated 21 st May, 2012,
the appellant insurance company has already deposited 50 % of the awarded
compensation with upto date interest which was released in terms of
subsequent order dated 24th January, 2014. Thus, the appellant insurance
company has already discharged its contractual and statutory responsibility.
6. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
8. The Tribunal's record be returned.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 25, 2016
nk
