Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Ritu Singh & Ors. on 6 May, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 22/2013
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
RITU SINGH & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Mr. Nirbhay Singh, aged about 33 years suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident statedly involving motorcycle bearing registration No.DL
13 PF 5424 (motorcycle) driven by him and Tata tempo bearing registration
No.DL 1LG 3777 (Tata tempo) on 30.08.2001 and died in the consequence.
His dependent family members, first to fifth respondents (claimants),
instituted an accident claim case (suit No.61/11) on 14.11.2011 seeking
compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act)
impleading the sixth and seventh respondents, in addition to the appellant, as
party respondents on the averment that they are the driver, owner and insurer
respectively of Tata tempo with allegations that the accident had occurred
due to negligent driving of the said vehicle. The tribunal held inquiry and,
by judgment dated 27.09.2012, upheld the case of the claimants about death
having occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It,
thereafter, proceeded to assess the compensation to be awarded in the case
and computed it at ₹42,04,000/- which was awarded with interest, the said
amount inclusive of ₹41,39,000/- calculated as loss of dependency on the
multiplier of 16 (rightly so chosen) after deduction of 1/5 th towards personal
& living expenses (again correctly so done) having found the annual income
of the deceased (after deduction of income tax liability) to be in the sum of
₹2,48,700/- which was appreciated by addition of element of future prospects
of increase to the extent of 30%. The insurer which had admitted its liability
to indemnify was called upon to pay the compensation.
2. The insurer is in appeal questioning the impugned judgment of the
tribunal on the ground that the finding with regard to negligence has been
returned without evidence. It also questions the computation of
compensation on the ground that the element of future prospects was
wrongly added.
3. Having heard arguments on behalf of the appellant, this Court finds no
substance in either of the above contentions.
4. Whilst it is true that the first claimant (Ritu Singh) appearing as PW1
spoke about the sequence of events, her information being sourced
essentially from the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted after conclusion of investigation into
the first information report (No.308/2011) of police station Sunlight Colony,
no other witness with regard to mishap has been examined. But it cannot be
ignored that even as per the said report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., no witness
could be found at the spot by the local police. This, however, does not mean
that the involvement of the Tata tempo in the accident or negligence about its
driver cannot be proved. In a case arising out of liability in tort, the strict
rule of proof beyond all reasonable doubts does not apply. If the
circumstances, attendant upon the mishap can be brought out otherwise than
on eye-witness testimony, and if such circumstances reveal the
preponderance of probability of negligence on the part of driver of one of the
vehicles involved, finding on the issue of involvement and negligence can
still be returned in such proceedings as at hand.
5. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was proved by PW1 during her
testimony. The genuineness of the said document and the narration of the
facts and circumstances noted therein about the scene of accident was not
challenged either during the testimony of PW1 or by way of any evidence in
rebuttal. The said material clearly shows that the motorcycle and the Tata
tempo had been found in an accidental state at the spot, the motorcycle
having been hit by the other vehicle from behind. The driver of Tata tempo
had abandoned the vehicle, having fled from the scene after the collision.
Guilty conscience on his part is writ large in this conduct. The motorcycle
rider having died, it fell on the shoulder of the Tata tempo driver to explain
the circumstances in which his vehicle had ended up hitting against the
motorcycle from rear side. The very fact that motorcycle was hit from
behind, the onus to justify the collision shifted and was very heavily placed
at the door of tempo driver. He not having been called into witness box even
by the insurer, the finding returned by the tribunal cannot now be questioned.
6. On the issue of future prospects, all that needs to be noted here is the
fact that the income of the deceased was proved with the help of income tax
returns (ITRs) for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, each
showing progressive rise from ₹1,30,050/- to ₹1,50,120/- to ₹2,49,150/-.
With such irrefutable evidence available on record, the plea against future
prospects must be rejected.
7. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.
8. The insurance company had been directed by order dated 09.01.2013
to deposit 80% of the awarded amount with accrued interest with UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court branch which was further directed to release 50% to the
claimants, keeping the balance in fixed deposit receipt. The Registrar
General shall now take necessary steps to have the balance lying in deposit
with the bank also released to the claimants in terms of the impugned
judgment. The insurance company shall satisfy the rest of the award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days.
9. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded after the award has
been satisfied.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 06, 2016
VLD
