Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Krishna & Ors on 29 August, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1005/2011 and CM APPL.20665/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dilip Kumar, proxy counsel
for Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
versus
KRISHNA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary,
Advocate for R-1 to R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant insurance company (insurer) was one of the party
respondents to the accident claim case (MAC Petition No.143/2010),
instituted by the first to fifth respondents (collectively, the claimants)
on 17.07.2010 seeking compensation on account of death of Yogender
Singh in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 16.04.2010
at about 7:15 a.m., involving collision between the two vehicles, they
being two wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DL-4S-AQ-3663
(the scooter) and Hyundai Accent car bearing registration No.DL-2F-
BD-9000 (the car). The deceased was riding on the scooter when the
accident statedly took place due to negligent driving of the car, the
latter vehicle admittedly insured against third party risk for the period
in question with the appellant (insurer).
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), after inquiry,
upheld the case of the claimants for compensation on principle of fault
liability and, by judgment dated 20.08.2011, awarded compensation in
the sum of Rs.30,35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Thirty Five
Thousand Only) which includes cost of medical treatment incurred for
the period the victim was alive after the accident, as also damages
under the head of loss of dependency and non-pecuniary damages,
under the head of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss to
estate and funeral expenses.
3. The insurer while contesting, had taken the plea of breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground the driver
of the car (sixth respondent in appeal) was not holding a valid or
effective driving licence. This plea was accepted on the basis of
evidence led and the insurer was called upon to initially pay the
compensation to the claimants, they being third party, but granted
recovery rights against the sixth respondent (driver) and the seventh
respondent in appeal (owner) relating to the offending vehicle.
4. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, questions the above said
judgment, the plea being that compensation on account of loss of love
and affection could not have been granted since dependency loss had
been compensated; the award is exorbitant; and further that there was
no liability to pay since the driver did not hold a valid and effective
driving licence.
5. All the contentions urged in the appeal are found to be devoid
of merit.
6. The non-pecuniary damages under the loss of love and affection
are invariably granted in the fatal accident cases in addition to loss of
dependency. The plea that the award is exorbitant is vague and, thus,
lacks substance. The interest of the insurance company has been
protected by grant of recovery rights.
7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
8. By order dated 16.11.2011, the execution of the award was
stayed subject to the insurance company depositing the awarded
amount with interest. By order dated 25.02.2013, sixty per cent (60%)
of the said deposited amount was allowed to be released. The balance
lying in deposit shall now be released to the claimants in terms of the
impugned award.
9. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant
insurance company.
10. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 29, 2017
vk
