Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2159 Del

$~35
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   Date of Decision: 17th March, 2016
+      MAC.APP. 159/2015& CM No. 2764/2015

       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD                              ..... Appellant

                          Through:      Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv.

                          versus

       DINESH KUMAR & ANR.                                ..... Respondents

                          Through:      Ms. Monika Phartyal, Adv. for R-1.
                                        Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                          JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. The first respondent suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 28.08.2007 at about 6 p.m. when the motorcycle bearing No. DL 1SP 7242 (the motorcycle) on which he has riding, was hit by another motor vehicle. He filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 24.10.2008, which registered it as MACT case No. 94/2008. In the said claim petition, he alleged that the accident had been caused by a Maruti van bearing registration No. DL 2CJ 5123, impleading its owner, Prem Singh as the first respondent (second respondent in the present appeal), also impleading Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant herein) as the second respondent.

2. The owner of the aforesaid Maruti van in his written statement denied the involvement of the vehicle and liability on his part. The appellant company (insurer) in its written statement admitted it having issued third party insurance policy in respect of the van. During the course of inquiry, however, it was pointed out on its behalf with reference to the first information report (FIR) 172/2007 registered at PS Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, Haryana (page nos. 227-231 of the tribunal's record) that the vehicle which had caused the accident was Maruti van bearing No. DL 2C 5123. Pertinently what has been pointed out by the insurer is that the letter 'J' is missing in the description of the Maruti van which was mentioned in the FIR to be the offending vehicle. The tribunal, by impugned judgment dated 12.11.2014, held that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving of Maruti van bearing No. DL 2CJ 5123. It further held that compensation against sum of ` 4,64,451/- was to be paid with interest to the appellant first respondent in the appeal. Since the insurance in respect of the said vehicle was admitted, the appellant was asked to indemnify and pay.

3. The only contention urged in the appeal is that the accident had been caused by a motor vehicle which was not insured with the appellant company. It is pointed that the description of the motor vehicle which had caused the accident in the FIR was different.

4. The contention of the insurance company must be rejected. Noticeably, on the tribunal's record (page 213) there is verification report dated 04.10.2013 (Ex.R2W1/2) stating that motor vehicle No. DL 2C 5123, (the description mentioned in the FIR) is a Maruti car 800. There is difference between a Maruti car and Maruti van. In the FIR, it is clearly indicated that the offending vehicle was a Maruti van. Thus, the mis-

description on account of omission of the letter 'J' in the FIR is inconsequential; also for the reason that the evidence of the claimant on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) about the offending vehicle being DL 2CJ 5123 (Maruti van) has gone unchallenged.

5. Thus, the appeal is found devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Insurance company has deposited the entire awarded compensation with proportionate interest in terms of order dated 18.02.2015 which was directed to be kept in fixed deposit for one year to be renewed from time to time.

7. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.

8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) MARCH 17, 2016 nk