Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Baby & Ors on 26 February, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 620/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
BABY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh & Mr. Izhar Ahmad,
Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 08.03.2011, the motor accident claims tribunal
(the tribunal) decided an accident claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act) registered as suit no.829/2009
and awarded compensation in sum of Rs.2,21,600/- with interest at the rate
of seven & half percent (7.5%) per annum from the date of filing the petition
till realization directing the appellant/insurance company to indemnify the
insured (second respondent herein) who was owner of the offending vehicle
bearing registration no.DL-1VA-2828 (RTV), the driver whereof was found
responsible for causing the accident resulting in death of Jagan.
2. The insurance company has come up with two short submissions. One
is that the claimant (first respondent herein) before the tribunal was a
married sister of the deceased Jagan. It is contended that she could not be
held to be a dependant so as to be allowed compensation on account of loss
of dependency. In this context, the appellant refers the observations of the
Supreme Court in (para 31 of) the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. The second
submission is that the claimant had been found by the tribunal, midway the
inquiry, to have caused unnecessary delay and for this reason by order dated
23.05.2008 it had been directed that she would not be entitled to get interest
w.e.f 17.12.2006 till steps were taken for further proceedings. It is pointed
out that the steps default in which regard was noted by the tribunal in
passing the said order related to adducing the evidence.
3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this court finds no
substance in both the contentions.
4. The tribunal considered the objections with regard to the dependency
in (paras 11 to 23 of) the impugned judgment. It is found that the tribunal
has taken a very sound view of the evidence brought on record. For present
purposes, it only needs to be noted that the claimant had proved through
evidence, which remained unrebutted, that her husband had died and the
deceased being her brother, she with her children were dependant upon him
financially. Even after the death had occurred, it was she who received the
dead body from the investigating police officer for last rites to be performed.
It is clear from the material on record that there was no immediate family
member of the deceased who could claim to be his dependant, he being a
bachelor. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the claimant was not
dependant.
5. Reliance on Sarla Verma (supra) by the insurance company is
misplaced. As noted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, the Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma (supra) while observing that the brother and sister
cannot be considered as dependants qualified the said observation with
words "in the absence of evidence to the contrary". The case at hand is an
illustration of exception to the general rule.
6. Whilst it does appear that the tribunal has observed by order dated
23.05.2008 that the claimant would not be entitled to get interest for a
certain period on account of delay caused by her, as pointed out by the
learned counsel for claimant, the subsequent proceedings before the tribunal
show that further delay was caused by the insurance company. It had earlier
suffered the proceedings exparte and awoke from its slumber later to seek
the exparte proceedings to be vacated so that it could belatedly participate.
7. In above facts and circumstances, the effect of interim order dated
23.05.2008 was rightly not reflected in the final judgment rendered by the
tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.
8. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
ssc
