Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Veena Singh & Ors on 24 August, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 542/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. D.K.Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
versus
VEENA SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Ms. Palak Rohmetra,
Advocate for R-1 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Ramashray Singh, aged 56 years, employed as Account Officer
with Controller of Defence Accounts (Air Force) was travelling in bus
bearing registration No.DL-1PA-7398. There being no seat available,
he was constrained to stand behind the conductor near the front gate.
In the area of traffic light at the junction of roads in Sector 1, R.K.
Puram, the bus took a sharp turn at high speed as a result of which he
lost balance and fell out of the front door of the bus so as to land on
the road suffering head injuries, which resulted in his death. An
accident claim case (Petition No.315/2013) was instituted by his wife
and three sons, they being first to fourth respondents (collectively, the
claimants) on 18.01.2012 impleading, besides the driver and owner of
the bus, the appellant insurance company (insurer), it being
concededly the insurer against third party risk in respect of the said
vehicle.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) after
inquiry, by judgment dated 29.01.2014 awarded compensation in the
total sum of Rs.36,50,300/- and directed the insurer to pay with
interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum.
3. The insurer has questioned the award by the appeal at hand,
which is pressed only on one contention, viz. that only the wife of the
deceased was dependent on him, all the three sons being major and
well-settled in life, this contention being raised on the basis of report
of investigator dated 19.04.2014. An application (CM APPL.No.
10324/2014) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) has been moved seeking opportunity to prove the said
report of investigator.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
counsel for the claimants, this court finds no substance in the prayer
for additional evidence. Such opportunity cannot be made available
for the asking. There is nothing shown by the appellant as to why the
investigation regarding dependency was not undertaken when the
claim case was pending inquiry before the tribunal from 18.01.2012 to
29.01.2014. No suggestions to such effect were made when the
claimant was adducing evidence. No inquiries were made of the
witnesses so as to bring out even otherwise that all the three sons were
self-reliant. The tribunal, on the basis of evidence, found that one son
is married and was financially independent and, therefore, excluded
his claim from consideration.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, the prayer under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC cannot be accepted. As a natural corollary, the appeal is
rendered devoid of merits. It is dismissed.
6. By order dated 02.07.2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest
with the Registrar General of this court, out of which seventy per cent
(70%) was allowed to be released to the claimants and the balance
kept in fixed deposit with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. The
balance shall now be released to the claimants.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant
insurance company.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
9. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 24, 2017
vk
