Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Usha & Ors on 23 March, 2016
$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 370/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv. proxy counsel
for Mr. K. L. Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SMT USHA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Giriraj Singh, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Manish Mani & Ms. Hreeshika
Bhargav, Adv. for R-2.
AND
+ MAC.APP. 865/2015
MELA WATI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Maini & Ms. Hreeshika
Bhargav, Adv.
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv. proxy counsel
for Mr. K. L.Nandwani, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 11.08.2010, at about 11:30 PM in the area of Jahangirpuri, a motor
vehicular accident occurred involving vehicle described as UP-21N-0210
(the offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against third party risk
with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in MAC appeal no.370/2012).
The accident resulted in death of Sunil @ Jailor, son of late Nanak Chand,
resident of E-817, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, then aged 22 years. A detailed
accident report (DAR) was filed by the station house officer (SHO) of police
station Mahendra Park which had registered as first information report (FIR)
no.184/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The said DAR, presented on 12.10.2010, was
registered and treated as the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act).
2. As per the DAR, the deceased was survived by his mother Usha and
eight years old sister Karina. The tribunal issued notice to the insurance
company by order dated 12.10.2010. The insurer filed objections regarding
particulars of Smt. Usha. The tribunal directed the investigating police
officer to enquire and submit a report. It may be added that the insurance
company had also submitted a legal offer to pay compensation in the sum of
`4,58,352/-.
3. During further inquiry by the tribunal, it emerged that Nanak Chand,
father of Sunil @ Jailor (the deceased) had died on 18.05.1997 and Usha, the
mother of the deceased thereafter had remarried with one Raj Kumar and
given birth to three children from the said wedlock. It appears that on
22.05.1998 a compromise had been entered upon by Usha (mother), Jasbir
Singh (maternal grandfather) and Melawati (paternal grandmother
whereunder the deceased, then an infant, had been given under the care and
custody of both of them (maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother),
the mother having agreed to relinquish all her rights qua him, in the event of
she remarrying.
4. The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of `7,02,800/-
apportioning it amongst Usha (mother) and Melawati (grandmother) in the
sum of `4,52,800/- and `2,50,000/- respectively.
5. The insurer which had been called upon to pay the compensation
preferred appeal (MAC appeal no.370/2012) raising a number of
contentions. During the pendency of the said appeal, Melawati
(grandmother of the deceased) filed cross-objections (CM no.22125/2015),
inter-alia, submitting that the share in the compensation granted to her was
neither just, nor fair, nor reasonable, also pointing out that there was no
interest levied. The said cross-objections have been treated as independent
appeal (MAC appeal no.865/2015).
6. When these appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for
insurance company submitted that he has received instructions that the
appeal of the insurer (MAC appeal no.370/2012) is to be withdrawn. The
said appeal is, thus, dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on the cross appeal, it is found that
the grievances about non-levy of interest on the awarded compensation is
correct. The DAR had been treated as claim petition on 12.10.2010. The
award was passed on 09.01.2012. In these circumstances, it is directed that
the insurer shall pay interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) from the date of
registration of DAR as the claim petition till the date of deposit of the
awarded compensation.
8. On the issue of apportionment, the learned counsel representing the
mother (Usha) and the grandmother (Melawati) jointly submitted that both
sides are agreeable if the compensation awarded is apportioned equally
amongst them. This, in given factual matrix being fair, the joint request is
accepted. The directions in the impugned judgment are modified. The
compensation awarded shall stand apportioned equally amongst the mother
(Usha) and grandmother (Melawati).
9. By order dated 11.04.2012, the insurer had been called upon to
deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar
General, which was directed to be kept in fixed deposit receipt with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court branch for a period of six months, to be renewed
from time to time. The Registrar General is directed to release the said
deposited amount with accrued interest in equal shares to Usha (mother) and
Melawati (grandmother). Since as a result of levy of interest, the insurer
shall be obliged to pay more amount of money, it is directed that it shall
deposit the same with the tribunal within 30 days, whereupon the same shall
also be released equally amongst the two - above mentioned family
members of the deceased.
10. The statutory deposit, if made, by the insurer, shall be refunded.
11. Both these appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 23, 2016
ssc
