Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rattan Singh & Ors. on 5 July, 2017
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 5th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1110/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Adv.
versus
RATTAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By judgment dated 19.02.2011, on the file of accident claim
case (Suit No. 744/2010/1999) instituted by first and second
respondents (collectively the claimants), the motor accident claims
tribunal (tribunal) awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,07,125/-
with interest on account of death of Premwati in motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 31.12.1998 involving negligent driving of
truck bearing No DL 1GA 2101 (the truck) holding, amongst others,
the appellant- insurance company (insurer) liable calling it upon to
pay.
2. The insurance company has come up in appeal raising grievance
that the insurance policy against third party risk had been issued by it
in favour of Jasbir Singh, the then owner of the truck, he having been
impleaded before the tribunal as first respondent but on his request, he
having been deleted from the array by order dated 08.07.2008, in view
of the fact that truck had been sold by him prior to the accident in
favour of one Amrik Singh (third respondent herein), the vehicle
having been driven by Bhupinder Singh (the first respondent herein)
he also having been added to the fray by subsequent amendment to the
claim petition. The prime contention of the appellant insurance
company is that the vehicle having been sold off by the insured, he
(the owner) not being a party to the claim proceedings, it had no
liability to indemnify.
3. Inspite of due service, the respondents have failed to appear.
4. Arguments have been heard, the record perused. It is clear from
the tribunal's record that the person insured i.e. Jasbir Singh, son of
Rajinder Singh was deleted from the array by order dated 08.07.2008.
While it is true that the tribunal while rendering the judgment on
19.02.2011 was under the impression that Jasbir Singh, the insured,
had been deleted from the array, which fact is mentioned not only in
the cause title but also in (para 3 of) the impugned judgment, a perusal
of the tribunal's record shows that there was no such order deleting
Jasbir Singh from the fray. It does appear that Jasbir Singh in his
written statement had taken the position that he had transferred the
vehicle in favour of Amrik Singh on 14.12.1998 by sale and,
therefore, he was not liable with regard to the accident that had
occurred on 31.12.1998. Amrik Singh who had been impleaded as
third respondent, in his written statement admitted having purchased
the vehicle from Jasbir Singh, he pegging the said transaction to
11.10.1998 though confirming that the vehicle stood transferred in his
name on 14.12.1998. If it were so, Jasbir Singh was neither the owner
nor responsible for the use of the vehicle on the date of the accident.
5. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that there is no formal order
deleting Jasbir Singh from the array of parties, there being no liability
in his respect, the insurance company which had issued the third party
insurance risk also cannot be called upon to indemnify. In this regard,
reference needs to be made, inter alia, to Section 157 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. After having purchased the vehicle, Amrik Singh
is not shown to have taken any steps to have the policy transferred in
his name.
6. Thus, the appeal of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is
allowed. The directions in the impugned judgment fastening the
liability on it to pay compensation awarded in favour of the claimants
are set aside.
7. By order dated 15.10.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch in the name of the claimants, such amount to be kept in
fixed deposit receipt. By order dated 11.09.2013, 80% of the said
amount with proportionate interest was allowed to be released to the
claimants.
8. The balance lying in fixed deposit receipt shall be refunded to
the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (appellant) forthwith. It will
be entitled to recover the amount paid in terms of the interim orders of
this Court (in appeal) from Amrik Singh or Bhupinder Singh (third
and fourth respondents herein), by appropriate proceedings to be taken
out before the tribunal.
9. Statutory deposit, if deposited, shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 05, 2017
nk
