Delhi High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Prabha Devi & Ors. on 1 December, 2017
$~R-613-614
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 01st December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1073/2012 and CM 20640/2013
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Mr. D.D. Singh and Mr.
Navdeep Singh, Advocates
versus
PRABHA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
+ MAC APPEAL 1082/2012 and CM 17240/2012
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Mr. D.D. Singh and Mr.
Navdeep Singh, Advocates
versus
SAMILA KHATOON & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By these appeals, the insurance company on which the liability
to pay the compensation has been fastened questions the common
judgment dated 06.07.2012 rendered on the respective claims of the
first and second respondent in each case, on account of deaths of their
bachelor sons Charan Singh Rawat and Javed in a motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on 27.01.2011 due to the negligent driving
of a Maruti Alto car bearing registration no.DL-3CR-3872, which was
insured against third party risk with the appellant (insurer) for the
period in question.
2. The counsel for the appellant argued that no proper proof of the
employment of the deceased persons was adduced as no official from
the employers were called in. It is noted that both the claim cases
arose out of the detailed accident reports (DARs) submitted by the
local police on the basis of evidence collected during investigation of
corresponding first information report (no.22/2011) of police station
Hazrat Nizamuddin. The claimants had proved in the course of
evidence the salary slips (Ex. R3W1/1 and R3W1/2) which evidence
has remained unimpeached and unchallenged. In that view of the
matter, the argument is devoid of substance.
3. It is then argued on the strength of the decision of the Supreme
Court in Bhagyalakshmi and Ors. Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd.
And Anr., (2009) 7 SCC 148 and of this court in United India
Insurance Company Vs. Kusum Jindal, MACA 980/2006 by order
dated 31.05.2007 that the policy was an 'Act only' policy and
therefore, the liability could not be fastened against the insurer. On
being asked, the counsel conceded that no such defence was pleaded
before the tribunal. The contention raised consequently is repelled.
The contention that it was the liability of the tribunal to hold an
inquiry under Section 166, leads the insurance company nowhere as it
was also the obligation of the insurer to assist the tribunal by raising
all appropriate defences at the appropriate stage.
4. Thus, both the appeals and the pending applications are
dismissed.
5. By order dated 28.09.2012 in MACA 1073/2012, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit the awarded amount with up-to-
interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court and by orders dated
06.08.2013 and 03.02.2014, some amount was released in favour of
the claimants. The balance with accrued interest shall also now be
released to the claimants.
6. By order dated 01.10.2012 in MACA 1082/2012, the insurance
company had been directed to deposit seventy five percent (75%) of
the award amount with proportionate interest with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch and by order dated 12.08.2013, the deposited
amount was released to the claimants. The insurance company is
directed to satisfy the award by requisite deposit of the balance with
the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be released to the
claimants.
7. The statutory deposits made by the insurer in each case are
forfeited as costs in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee and shall be made over to it accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 01, 2017
yg
