Delhi High Court
Saroj Kuwar & Ors vs Suresh Singh & Ors on 2 August, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 2nd August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 792/2014
SAROJ KUWAR & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
versus
SURESH SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate
for R-3/NIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the claim petition (Suit No.101/2009) of the appellants
arising out of the death of Amit Kumar in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 10.12.2008, proven to be on account of negligent
driving of truck bearing registration no.HR-38G-4311 by the first
respondent, it concededly being insured against the third party risk
with the third respondent (the insurer) at the instance of the second
respondent (the registered owner), the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the tribunal) by judgment dated 26.04.2011 awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.7,19,200/- and directed that it shall be
joint and several liability of the first and second respondents to pay,
the insurer having been exonerated, its plea about breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy having been accepted on the basis
of findings returned that there was no valid permit covering the
vehicle in question and that the driving licence presented by the first
respondent was fake.
2. By the appeal at hand, the claimants seek enhancement of the
compensation on the ground that the loss of dependency was not
properly calculated as the proof about the income of the deceased
from his private employment with entity known as Parkar Power
Systems Limited was ignored. The claimants also submitted that the
insurance company should have been called upon to pay the
compensation and on account of breach of terms and conditions of the
policy, it should have been granted recovery rights.
3. The first contention concerning the loss of dependency cannot
be accepted. The tribunal has given sound reasons for rejecting the
evidence of the first claimant (PW-1) with regard to private
employment. No cogent proof about such employment was adduced.
Therefore, the tribunal was justified in making assessment on the basis
of minimum wages of a graduate.
4. The second contention, however, must be accepted. The
insurance company had undertaken the liability to cover third party
risk. If there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy,
it can always recover the amount from the person insured or the
driver, who have been held jointly and severally liable to bear the
burden of the compensation.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the third respondent is directed to
satisfy the award in favour of the claimants (appellants) by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be
released to the claimants. The insurance company (the third
respondent) thereafter, may take out appropriate proceedings to
recover the said amount from first and second respondents who, even
otherwise, were held jointly and severally liable to pay by the tribunal.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
7. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2017
vk
