Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Ramkali & Ors on 3 November, 2017
$~R-399
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 3rd November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 874/2011
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
RAMKALI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv. for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 08.03.2009, Jitender Kumar was on board bus bearing
registration no. DL 1PB 6235 (the bus), as a labourer, it plying on
stage carriage route no. 502, in the territory of Delhi when the bus had
reached the traffic signal on Tilak Marg red light and Bhagwan Das
Road at about 5.00 a.m. it came to be involved in a collision with
truck bearing registration no. HR 55 D 4914 (the truck). As a result of
the impact, the bus caught fire, Jitender Kumar suffering 100% burns
and dying in the consequence, this becoming subject matter of
investigation by the police through first information report (FIR) No.
52/2009 under Sections 279/337/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) of police station Tilak Marg. His mother, the first respondent
(the claimant) instituted accident claim case (suit no. 624/2009) on
05.11.2009 seeking compensation impleading amongst others, the
owner and insurer of the bus, the said insurer being the appellant now
before this Court. It may be mentioned here that the party respondents
connected with the truck, however, stand exonerated of any liability.
2. Though the claim was initially filed under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the request of the claimant, it was later
converted into a case on the principle of no-fault liability under
Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- and directed the
insurer of the bus (appellant) to pay.
3. The appellant presses the appeal at hand on the ground that it
should have been exonerated since there was no proof of the driver of
the bus holding a valid or effective driving licence. It refers to the
application moved by it on 03.07.2010 seeking opportunity to lead
evidence about absence of any valid licence referring, inter alia, to a
notice it had issued on 02.07.2010 under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to the owner of bus for production of
the relevant documents contending that there had been no response.
4. The plea of the insurance company to above effect did not
find acceptance by the tribunal. In the light of facts and circumstances
of the case and the proceedings recorded by the tribunal, it is found to
be devoid of substance. The tribunal had noted in order dated
06.07.2010 that the investigating police officer had reported that all
the documents including the licence of the driver of the bus had been
burnt with the said vehicle, even the driver having died.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
6. By order dated 27.09.2011, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within the period
specified. By order dated 18.03.2013, the said amount was permitted
to be released to the claimant. Thus no, further directions are called
for.
7. The statutory deposit of the insurance company shall be
refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 03, 2017
nk
