Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance ... vs Sunita Devi And Ors on 7 July, 2017
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 7th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 940/2016
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
SUNITA DEVI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.K. Dubey, Adv. for R-1
to 5.
Mr. S.K. Jha, Adv. for R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The insurance company though admitting the insurance cover in
respect of the offending vehicle, it being described as Tata Ace
bearing registration No. DL 1LP 8968 disputes the liability fastened
upon it claiming that the deceased was gratuitous passenger in goods
vehicle and, therefore, it could not have called upon to indemnify, as
ordered by the tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 28.07.2016,
on the claim petition of first to fifth respondents (claimants), it having
been registered as suit No. 201/2015, arising out of the death of Anil
Kumar Pandey.
2. The evidence led by the claimants, sought to show that the
deceased was accompanying the goods being carried in the offending
vehicle at the time of accident. It appears at the time of police
investigation in the wake of the accident, no formal seizure of any
such goods was made. The tribunal has rejected the contention of the
insurance company dealing with the evidence as under:-
"32. Deceased is shown to be employed with DTDC
Courier Company and his office ID is Ex.PW-1/1. It is
sufficiently proved that deceased was working with above-
said courier company. Testimony of PW-2 Lakshmi
Shankar Upadhyay also shows that deceased was
travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith gods of
courier company as its representative.
33. Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the
admission of respondent no.2/owner of offending vehicle in
his cross-examination that he has no record to show that
the goods were being carried in the offending vehicle at
the time of accident. It is also admitted by him that there
was no goods in the offending vehicle at the time when it
was impounded and at the time of its release. The
offending vehicle may not have been found to containing
goods at the time of impounding, but it does not bely the
testimony with the goods of courier company.
34. It can be easily understood that goods of the courier
company would not have been seized since it was not the
case property. PW-2 Lakshmi Shankar Upadhyay has
stated in his statement in the first instance, on the basis of
which FIR was registered, that deceased was travelling in
the offending vehicle alongwith goods of the courier
company with which he was employed. Facts as narrated
by PW-2 Lakshmi Shankar Upadhyay in the first instance
have to be believed for there was no reason for him to
have wrongly stated that the deceased was travelling with
goods. Criminal record and evidence sufficiently proves
that deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle with
the goods as a representative of owner of goods.
35. In the case of Hanuman Gouda vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. 2014 (1) TAC 723 (SC), identical
facts as present case came before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. A reference was made accompanying the
goods in transit for the purpose of delivery as an
authorized representative of the owner of goods. Hence,
Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation.
36. In the present case as well, deceased being an
employee/authorised representative of the owner, travelled
along with the goods. Hence, Insurance Company is liable
to indemnify the insured and pay the compensation to
petitioners".
3. This court finds the reason set out to be sound calling for no
interference.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
5. The amount of compensation deposited shall be released to the
claimants.
6. Statutory deposit shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 07, 2017
nk
