Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Laxmi Chand Lalwani & Ors on 23 March, 2016
$~R-40A
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 351/2007
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv.
versus
LAXMI CHAND LALWANI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. In a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 15.3.2002 at about
5.10 p.m. involving bus bearing No. DL IPA 4176 (the offending vehicle),
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer), Laxmi Chand Lalwani (first respondent) suffered
injuries. He (the claimant) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 15.12.2004 before the motor
accident claims tribunal (tribunal), which registered it as Suit No.
202/2004. It appears that besides the insurer, the driver (Matru) and the
owner (Ram Mohan Verma) of the offending vehicle were impleaded as
the respondents. It further appears that during the pendency of the claim
petition, at the instance of the claimant, the name of the driver (Matru) was
deleted from the array of parties. Thus, the claim petition was pressed only
against the registered owner (the person stated to be vicariously liable) and
the insurance (the party statedly liable to indemnify).
2. During inquiry, the claimant led evidence by examining himself (as
PW-1), inter alia, on the basis of his own affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) on
which he was cross-examined. He also examined certain other witnesses
Satender Kumar (PW-2) and ASI Nand Ram (PW-3) to prove the record
relating to disability suffered and the evidence gathered during
investigation of the corresponding criminal case. The insurer, on the other
hand, examined two witnesses mainly to prove the ownership of the
vehicle and cover note.
3. The tribunal, by judgment dated 12.04.2007, found that a case for
compensation payable by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle
had been made out. It assessed the compensation payable to the claimant
at ₹ 1,98,800/- and awarded it with interest.
4. The insurer filed the present appeal raising a number of contentions.
At the hearing, the only grounds pressed are that the driver having been
deleted, the case could not have been maintained and that there was no
proof of negligence on the part of the driver.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the appeal must fail on both
counts. The negligence on the part of the driver was duly established by
the claimant by his own testimony, based on affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) in
which he had stated that the driver of the bus had moved it in a zig-zag
manner so much so its tyre came over a pit and got burst. In the facts and
circumstances proved by the claimant, the accident resulting in injuries to
the claimant who was travelling in the bus was on account of bursting of
tyre which, in turn, had occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle.
The absence of the driver from the array of parties is inconsequential as the
person vicariously liable has been impleaded.
6. The appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
7. By order dated 31.5.2007, the execution of the impugned award was
stayed. By order dated 25.03.2010, the said order was modified and the
insurer was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date
interest with UCO Bank which was directed to retain it in a fixed deposit
initially for a period of six months with right given to the claimant to
receive monthly interest through credit into his savings bank account.
8. The amount lying in deposit shall now be released to the claimant in
terms of the impugned judgment.
9. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 23, 2016
nk
