Delhi High Court
Reliance General Ins Co Ltd vs Shobha Rana & Ors on 20 May, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 321/2015 and CM No.6251/2015 and 6702/2016
RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate
versus
SHOBHA RANA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj K. Mishra and Mr. Sandeep
Kumar Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1 & 2
Mr. Munazir Hsan, proxy counsel for R-5 & 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Amit Kumar Rana @ Amit Kumar Nak, aged 29 years, employed as a
house keeping supervisor with Anila Hotels suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 26.12.2013, statedly involved in a
negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as Hydro Crane bearing
registration no.HR-99BN-2181 (offending vehicle) and died in the
consequence. An accident claim case (suit no.D/182/14) was instituted on
08.01.2015 by his dependent family members (claimants) on 08.01.2015 by
his dependent family members (claimants), now first to fourth respondents
in appeal. In the said accident claim case, the appellant insurance company
(insurer) was impleaded as a party, it having concededly issued an insurance
policy against third party risk for the period in question for the offending
vehicle; this, in addition to driver and owner thereof.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 08.01.2015, upheld
the case of the claimants that death had occurred due to negligent driving of
the offending vehicle. It awarded compensation in the sum of
Rs.36,40,000/- with interest in favour of the claimants and directed the
insurer to pay.
3. By the appeal at hand, the insurer questions the finding on the issue of
negligence submitting that eye witness, Vinod (PW-3) was not reliable and
therefore conclusion to such effect could not have been reached. The
insurance company also questions the addition of future prospects of
increase to the extent of 50% arguing that the deceased was not in a
permanent job.
4. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, this court finds no
substance in either of the two contentions. The evidence of the eye witness,
Vinod (PW-3) has to be seen in the light of the facts and circumstances
regarding which evidence was gathered by the police during investigation of
the corresponding criminal case. The police had submitted the accident
information report (AIR) accompanied by copy of the report under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) which clearly brings
out the fact that the offending vehicle and the motor cycle were found in
accidental state at the scene when the investigang police officer reached
there. In these circumstances, mere fact that PW-3 would not remember the
particulars of the offending vehicle during his oral testimony is
inconsequential. There is no reason, therefore, for the finding on the issue of
negligence to be disturbed.
5. The evidence adduced by the claimants clearly showed that the
deceased was a regular employee of the hotel. The fact as to whether he was
in temporary engagement of service is of no import. In these circumstances,
the addition of future prospects cannot be grudged.
6. The insurance company had been directed by order dated 08.05.2015
to deposit the entire awarded amount with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
Branch, New Delhi which was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit receipt for
a period of one year to be renewed from time to time. The said amount shall
now be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment /
award. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
7. The appeal is dismissed. The pending applications consequently also
stand dismissed.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 20, 2016
yg
