Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs United India Insurance Co Ltd & Ors on 31 March, 2016
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 262/2016 & CM Nos.11707-11708/2016
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Jyotindra Kumar, Adv.
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS
..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On accident claim petition of the second respondent Master Rohit,
registered as suit No.905/09, the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) by
judgment dated 01.06.2015 awarded compensation in the sum of
`12,18,000/- in his favour directing the appellant the Delhi Transport
Corporation (DTC) to pay the said amount with interest within the period
specified. DTC, noticeably, being the registered owner of the bus which had
statedly caused the accident resulting in injuries to Master Rohit had been
impleaded as second respondent in the proceedings before the tribunal.
From the documents placed on record, it appears that DTC, by an
application later moved Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) pointed out that an amount of `50,000/- had already been paid by it to
the claimant (Master Rohit) as compensation. By another application
simultaneously moved, it also pointed out to the tribunal that the bus in
question was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (first
respondent herein) and therefore, the liability to pay should have been
fastened on it. The tribunal considered both the said applications and
allowed them by common order dated 07.09.2015, while allowing `50,000/-
to be deducted from the awarded compensation. At the same time it directed
the insurance company to pay the amount of `12,18,000/- to the claimant.
The appellant herein (DTC) moved another application seeking modification
of the order dated 07.09.2015 mainly to point out that the amount of
`50,000/- had been deposited in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate in the
context of proceedings arising out of FIR No.150/09 which had been
registered respecting the motor vehicular accident which was subject matter
of the claim petition. This application was dismissed by order dated
29.09.2015 with observation that similar application had already been
decided modifying the impugned order/judgment.
2. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, notice need not even
be issued to the respondents. It is clear that the tribunal has not taken care of
the interest of the appellant herein with regard to the deposit of `50,000/-
which it claims to have made with the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in
2009. The tribunal, instead of mechanically allowing the two applications
by order dated 07.09.2015 should have first inquired into the claim as to
whether the amount of `50,000/- was deposited with the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate which needs to be adjusted. Further, it required to
be inquired as to whether the said amount had already been released to the
claimant (Master Rohit) or was still lying with the Metropolitan Magistrate
awaiting orders for disbursal. If the said amount has already been received
by the claimant, the insurer could not have been asked to pay the entire
awarded amount without such amount of `50,000/- to be adjusted.
Conversely, if the said amount has not been released so far, the same
required to be refunded by appropriate arrangement to be made.
3. The tribunal is directed to reconsider the request of the appellant and
pass all necessary orders.
4. The appeal with all pending applications is disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 31, 2016
VLD
