Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lal Kaur & Ors. on 1 June, 2016
$~R-133
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01.06.2016
+ MAC.APP. 98/2008 & CM No.2367/2008
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellants
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
LAL KAUR & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Surender Pal Singh, a bachelor working as constable in Delhi Police,
aged about 36 years, died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
21.05.1999 involving negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing registration
No.UP 16 4048 (offending vehicle), admittedly insured third party risk with
the appellant insurance company. His widowed mother (first respondent)
(claimant) instituted an accident claim case (petition No.124/04) on
24.08.1999 seeking compensation under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), on the averments that the accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Rakesh Kumar
Sharma (second respondent). The tribunal, upon inquiry, by judgment dated
05.10.2007 upheld the case about death having occurred due to negligent
driving of the offending vehicle. It proceeded to award compensation in the
sum of Rs.5,70,680/- with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the
claimant fastening the liability on the insurer.
2. The appeal at hand was filed taking exception, inter alia, to grant of
interim award without any evidence being taken; the tribunal not taking note
of the undue delay and yet adding the element of interest; the witnesses
examined with the driver and owner being set ex-parte in the course of
inquiry; no finding having been returned in respect of the responsibility of
the owner/insured of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding; and
about the calculation of loss of dependency and interest.
3. The appeal was entertained and notice issued. It was directed to be
shown in the list of regular matters as per order dated 21.04.2010. At the
hearing, however, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Having
regard to the fact that this is now the oldest appeal on board of this Court,
there is no reason why the hearing should be deferred.
4. On perusal of the grounds and the tribunal's record, the appeal is
found to be wholly unmerited. The interim award under Section 140 of MV
Act did not require any formal evidence on the question of fault to be
adduced. If the driver and owner were set ex-parte, on account of their
absence in spite of notice, the insurer cannot raise this as an issue in appeal
against final award. It is noted that no plea was taken about responsibility of
the owner of the motorcycle which the deceased was riding. The levy of
interest by the tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case does not
suffer from any error. The other pleadings on record are vague and so
inconsequential.
5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
6. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
JUNE 01, 2016/VLD
