Delhi High Court
Future Generali India Insurance ... vs Praveen Bains & Ors on 12 May, 2016
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 12.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 583/2014 and CM No.10727/2014
FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek K. Gola, Advocate
versus
PRAVEEN BAINS & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Ms. Aarti
Manchanda and Ms. Richa Verma, Advocates for
R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Rakesh Kumar, aged 36 years, died in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 20.02.2012 statedly involving negligent driving of a truck
bearing registration no.HR-55A-4559 (offending vehicle) which was
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company for the period in question. The dependant family members of
Rakesh Kumar, first to third respondents in appeal (claimants), instituted an
accident claim case (MACP 275/2012) before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (tribunal) on 09.10.2012. In the said proceedings, besides the
insurer, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively were also
impleaded as parties. On the basis of evidence led during inquiry, the
tribunal, by judgment dated 16.05.2014, upheld the case of the claimants
that death had occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
The said finding has attained finality as there was no challenge thereto.
2. By judgment dated 16.05.2014, the tribunal awarded compensation in
the sum of `31,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
filing of the petition till realization, directing the insurer to pay the said
amount which is inclusive of loss of dependency at `28,80,000/- calculated
on the basis of income found to be in the sum of `16,000/- p.m. on the basis
essentially of the evidence of Sunita Sukhija (PW-3) affirming that the
deceased was employed in her restaurant in Chanakya Puri, New Delhi for
the last 5 years preceding the date of accident.
3. The insurer which has been fastened with the liability has come up in
appeal stating that the evidence of PW-3 about the employment of the
deceased or his earnings therefrom has been wrongly believed without any
corroborative proof, particularly as the witness took the plea that the records
maintained by her office respecting all the employees had been destroyed in
a fire incident. During the course of argument when question arose as to
why the oral word of PW-3 with regard to the employment and earnings of
the deceased should be believed, the counsel for the claimants submitted that
he is agreeable to the appeal of the insurance company being allowed and
the impugned judgment to the extent it awarded compensation to be set
aside but requests that he be given further opportunity to adduce proper
evidence to corroborate the case about the employment and earnings as
cogent evidence in that regard is available.
4. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the prayer of
both sides is accepted. The impugned judgment to the extent it calculated
and awarded compensation is set aside. The matter to the limited extent of
calculating the compensation is remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry.
During such further inquiry, the claimants shall be allowed opportunity to
lead further evidence. Needless to add, the parties which contest shall be
entitled to cross-examine the witnesses additionally examined by the
claimant and also lead evidence in rebuttal, if any. The parties shall appear
before the tribunal for such purposes on 19.07.2016.
5. The insurance company had deposited the entire awarded amount
with interest with the Registrar General of this court within the period
specified in terms of the interim order dated 23.07.2014, and out of the said
deposit, an amount of `20 Lakh was allowed to be released to the claimant
in terms of the impugned judgment. The said amount already received by
the claimants shall be liable to be suitably adjusted in accordance with the
award to be passed afresh by the tribunal. The balance of the deposit made
by the insurance company shall be presently refunded to it with upto date
interest alongwith statutory deposits, if made.
6. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 12, 2016
yg
