Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Dn Virmani And Ors on 2 March, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02nd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1105/2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal & Ms. Roopika
Singh, Advs.
versus
DN VIRMANI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A. K. Soni, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The insurance company (the appellant) was directed by the motor
accident claims tribunal (the tribunal), by judgment dated 30.07.2011 in
accident claim case registered as 606/2010, to pay compensation in the sum
of `27,68,200/- with interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum
from the date of filing of the petition, to the first to third respondents (the
claimants) on account of death of Deepanshu Virmani in a motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on the night of 23/24.11.2007 involving
rash/negligent driving of truck bearing registration no.HR-38E-5632 (the
offending vehicle) concededly insured with it against third party risk, for the
period in question, after finding had been recorded that the said offending
vehicle owned by the firth respondent (the owner) was driven in
rash/negligent manner by the fourth respondent (the driver).
2. Though the insurance company filed this appeal on various grounds,
at the hearing it is pressed only on the ground that there was no proof
adduced by the claimants as to the rash/negligent driving of the truck and
that the element of future prospects has been wrongly added while
calculating the loss of dependency.
3. During the course of proceeding arising out of this appeal, the
claimants have placed on record certified copy of the statement of Gunjan
Khurana who was a passenger in the car bearing registration no.DL-9CM-
9532 which was driven by the deceased at the time of accident. Gunjan
Khurana made the statement as prosecution witness no.2 in the course of
proceedings arising out of the criminal case registered on conclusions of
investigation into first information report (FIR) no.805/2007 of police
station Vasant Kunj (North) which has been registered in respect of the
vehicular accident which is subject matter of the case at hand. Gunjan
Khurana as PW2 in the said case, affirmed the requisite background of the
fact which had led to collision between the car and the truck bringing out the
rash driving of the latter vehicle by its driver. Since the said document was
taken on record with consent of the appellant/insurance company, the
counsel fairly conceded that the said material does provide the missing link
in the evidence on the subject of negligence that was adduced before the
tribunal.
4. In above view, main ground pressed by the insurance company is with
regard to the element of future prospects. On this issue, the contention of
the insurance company must be noted only to be rejected. The evidence
brought before the tribunal clearly showed that the deceased, a 24 years old
person, had successfully completed degree course of bachelor of dental
surgery. He was thus, on the threshold of practice as dental surgeon. In
these circumstances, the assessment of the income, including about
prospective increase in future has been correctly dealt with by the tribunal in
the impugned judgment.
5. The appeal is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed.
6. By order dated 08.12.2011, the insurance company was called upon to
deposit the awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar
General of this court within the period specified, out of which forty percent
(40%) was allowed to be released. It is now directed that the balance shall
also be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment.
7. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 02, 2016
ssc
