Delhi High Court
National Insurnace Company Ltd. vs Shri Lilu Ram & Ors. on 2 June, 2016
$~R-136
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02.06.2016
+ MAC.APP. 107/2008
NATIONAL INSURNACE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
versus
SHRI LILU RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. While contesting the accident claim case (Suit no. 686/1998) which
had been instituted on 09.03.1998 by the first to fourth respondents
(claimants) before the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) arising out
of death of Naresh Kumar in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
10.10.97, statedly involving negligent driving of tata tanker No. HYL 466,
(offending vehicle), the appellant insurance company (insurer), having been
impleaded as a party respondent took the plea that the cover note relied on
by the owner of the said vehicle (sixth respondent herein) had been
manipulated and got issued by playing fraud on the company through its
agent Sunita, wife or Raj Kumar, falsely showing it to have been issued at
03.05 p.m. on 10.10.97 even though it was actually issued against a
premium deposited with the company on 13.10.97. This plea was rejected
by the tribunal with observation that the third party rights cannot be defeated
and the insurance company was at liberty to proceed against its agent or the
owner of the offending vehicle, who was alleged to be in complicity, by
appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court.
2. By the appeal at hand, the insurance company reiterates its
submission that its evidence about fraud play should have been accepted and
it be exonerated.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone
through the record, this Court finds the appeal to be unmerited.
4. The tribunal has taken an appropriate view in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The agent of the company was not a party before
the tribunal. In these circumstances, the plea of fraud play by her could not
have been adjudicated upon by the tribunal in the said proceedings. The
interest of the insurer has already been protected by appropriate directions in
the impugned judgment. The appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
5. By order dated 19.02.2008, the enforcement of the impugned award
was stayed subject to the insurer depositing the entire awarded amount
within the period specified. By order dated 24.04.2009, the earlier order
was modified and the insurer was directed to deposit Rs. 5,75,000/- with
interest, which amount was allowed to be released to the claimants. By
subsequent order dated 26.08.2009, the learned Single Judge then seized of
the matter issued certain further directions about the manner of protecting
the corpus of the amount thus, released.
6. Since the appeal is not pressed on any other grounds, the stay against
remainder of the award granted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment
stands vacated. The insurer shall deposit the balance with the tribunal
within 30 days, making it available to be released to the claimants.
7. Statutory deposit, if deposited, shall be refunded after it is verified
that the award has been satisfied.
8. The registry shall send copies of the judgment to the claimant by
registered post at the given address.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
JUNE 02, 2016/nk
