Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Subhadra Yadav & Ors on 4 May, 2016
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 392/2014 and CM No.7492/2014
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
versus
SUBHADRA YADAV & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kr. Verma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Ram Avtar Yadav, 44 years old, employed with M/s. Hawk-Eye
Protection & Detective Services (P) Ltd. at a gross salary of ₹ 9200/- p.m.
was riding on a motor cycle with his Field Officer on 10.11.2011 when it
was involved in a collision against another motor vehicle, resulting in both
falling down, suffering injuries, Ram Avtar Yadav dying in the
consequence. The accident claim case (MAC petition no.29/2012) was
instituted on 14.02.2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Tribunal) by first to fifth respondents (claimants) seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It
was alleged before the Tribunal that the motor vehicle which had caused the
accident was Wagon R Car bearing registration no.DL-2CZ-7409 (the car),
owned and driven by the sixth respondent, it being admittedly insured
against third party risk with the appellant insurance company (insurer) for
the period in question. The said owner-cum-driver of the car and the insurer
were impleaded as respondents before the tribunal. While the sixth
respondent submitted written statement generally denying the allegations in
the claim petition but referring to the insurance cover, the insurer in its
written statement took the usual defences without making any clear
averment as to the involvement of the car.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 14.02.2014,
accepted the case of the claimants about death having occurred due to
negligent driving of the aforementioned car. The compensation in the sum
of ₹17,86,250/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. with
direction to the insurer to pay, the said amount being inclusive of
₹15,06,960/- computed as loss of dependency.
3. By the appeal at hand, the insurer submits that the story of
involvement of the aforementioned car in the accident has been fabricated
and that the accident had actually occurred on account of the vehicle
described as Skoda, the full particulars whereof were not noted. In this
context, reference is made to a report purportedly lodged on 11.11.2011 by
Jandev Yadav, the brother of the deceased, addressing it to the Station
House Officer of the local police station Kasna, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P., copy whereof has been submitted (at page 43 of the paper
book).
4. Having heard arguments and perused the record, this court finds no
merit in the above contention. The claim case has to be decided on the basis
of evidence led during inquiry. As noted earlier, there was no specific
denial of the involvement of the car in the accident by either of the two
respondents. The evidence led by the claimants through an eye witness
Manoj Kumar (PW-2) affirming on oath that the accident had occurred on
account of the motor cycle being hit by the above-mentioned Wagon R car
has gone unchallenged. During the cross-examination primarily conducted
by the counsel for the insurer, not even a remote suggestion was given to the
effect that the offending vehicle was not Wagon R car but another car make
Skoda. The witness was not confronted with the purported report made by
the brother of the deceased to the local police. Even otherwise, it is clear
from the material on record, that the brother of the deceased was not an eye
witness to the accident. Concededly, in the report under Section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) that was filed on conclusion of
investigation of the corresponding case registered by the police, reference
was made to the car which is mentioned as the offending vehicle in the
present proceedings.
5. In above view, the contention of the insurer in appeal cannot be
accepted.
6. On the quantum, the insurer has raised only one issue, i.e. the addition
of future prospects of increase to the extent of 30% while calculating the
loss of dependency. The evidence with regard to the engagement of the
deceased in the employment with M/s. Hawk-Eye Protection & Detective
Services (P) Ltd. was brought in through the testimony of Vachaspati
Mishra, (PW-3), HR officer of the said company. Having gone through the
material submitted by him, it is found that the deceased was in regular
employment with the said entity, the progressive rise in the income in the
said employment being inherent in the terms and conditions. Thus, the
addition of future prospects cannot be grudged.
7. The appeal is, therefore, found to be unmerited and is liable to be
dismissed.
8. By order dated 29.04.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with accrued interest with the Registrar
General, out of which 50% was allowed to be released, the balance to be
kept in a fixed deposit receipt. The Registrar General shall now take
necessary steps for the balance also to be released to the claimants, in terms
of the impugned judgment.
9. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
10. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 04, 2016
yg
