Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Master Rohan & Ors on 9 August, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 09th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 95/2017 and CM No.3172/2017 and 17932/2017
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
versus
MASTER ROHAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Tomar, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Uma Shankar Sharma and Mr. Amit
Sharma, Advocates for R-2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent, then aged 11 years, has suffered injuries in
a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 20.12.2010, statedly due
to negligent driving of a motor vehicle bearing registration no.DL-
1LG-4979. An accident claim case (MACT 109/11, new
no.15413/2015) was filed for compensation on his behalf in which the
appellant was impleaded as third respondent, it being the insurer
against third party risk of the offending vehicle, the other respondents
being the driver and owner, now second and third respondents in
appeal.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry,
and, by judgment dated 22.12.2016, upheld the case on the principle
of fault liability and awarded compensation in the sum of
Rs.8,67,350/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. directing the appellant
to pay rejecting its contentions about the breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, this based on the evidence to the
effect that the driving licence held by the second respondent herein
was fake.
3. The insurer has come up in appeal questioning the computation
of compensation on the ground the assessment of functional disability
to the extent of 65% was unfounded. It also raises questions about the
non-pecuniary heads of damages that have been awarded, reiterating
the plea about the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy.
4. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the first respondent
fairly conceded that better evidence about the nature and extent of
disability required to be adduced. He thus conceded that the appeal of
the insurance company may be allowed but prayed that the matter may
be remitted for further inquiry so that the claimant can adduce further
evidence. The counsel for the insurance company and the other
respondents submit no objection.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded to the tribunal for
further inquiry in which the claimants will be given opportunity to
lead additional evidence particularly on the question of disability, its
nature and extent. Needless to add, opportunity will also be given to
the contesting respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any.
6. The contentions of all the parties are kept open to be
reconsidered by the tribunal in the fresh judgment.
7. The amount deposited by the insurance company in terms of the
order dated 25.01.2017 and the statutory deposit shall be presently
refunded.
8. The parties shall assemble before the tribunal for further
proceedings in accordance with law on 08.09.2017.
9. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 09, 2017
yg
