Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sunita Singh And Ors on 9 May, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 172/2013
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through:
versus
SUNITA SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Accident claim case (suit no.332/10) decided by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (tribunal) by judgment dated 31.10.2012, concerned the
death of Anupam Kumar Singh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred
on 24.09.2010. In the claim petition, preferred by first to fourth respondents
(collectively, claimants) it was alleged that the accident had occurred since
the motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-6ST-9807 (motor cycle) on
which the deceased was travelling was hit by a bus bearing registration
no.DL-1PB-3806 (bus) in a negligent manner.
2. The tribunal has returned a finding upholding the case that the death
had occurred due to involvement of the bus and the negligent driving thereof
by its driver, primarily on the statement of the first claimant (first
respondent) who appeared as a witness (PW-1) tendering her affidavit
(PW1/1) and a copy of the record of investigation relating to the first
information report (FIR) no.308/2010 of PS R.K. Puram.
3. The insurance company which has been fastened with the liability to
pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal by the judgment dated
31.10.2012, raises the prime issue of there being no evidence adduced about
the involvement of the bus and negligence on the part of its driver. It may
also be added that the insurer further questions the computation of
compensation as well.
4. PW-1, the solitary witness examined with regard to the involvement
of the bus and negligence was admittedly not an eye witness. On being
asked, the counsel for the claimants submitted that he may now be given an
opportunity to prove the necessary facts by proper evidence, in as much as
the eye witness was available, he being the person travelling on the
motorcycle with the deceased at the same point of time.
5. With this submission, the counsel fairly concedes that the impugned
judgment may be set aside and the matter remitted to the tribunal.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment is set
aside. The matter is remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry in
accordance with law. In the further inquiry, the claimants shall be entitled to
lead further evidence. Needless to add, the parties which contest will be
entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to be further examined by the
claimants and also lead evidence in rebuttal. After giving such opportunity,
the tribunal shall pass a fresh judgment with an open mind without feeling
bound by the view taken earlier. The parties shall appear before the tribunal
on 07.06.2016.
7. By order dated 22.02.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded with upto date interest with the UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch, from which 50% was allowed to be released, the
balance kept in fixed deposit receipt. The amount held in fixed deposit
receipt shall presently be refunded to the insurance company with statutory
deposit, if made. The amount already received by the claimants shall be
subject to adjustment against the award that may be passed by the tribunal in
the remitted inquiry, should the case of the claimants about involvement of
the bus and negligence on the part of its driver be upheld. Conversely, if the
tribunal holds otherwise, it shall issue necessary directions about such
amounts paid to the claimants.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 09, 2016
yg
