Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Balvinder Kaur @ Boby & Ors on 10 November, 2017
$~R-456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL NO. 146/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
BALVINDER KAUR @ BOBY & ORS ....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Avtar Singh, 46 years old, suffered injuries at about 9:00 AM.
on 03.01.2010 while travelling on three wheeler scooter bearing
registration no. DL 1RG 8483 (TSR) driven by fourth respondent. He
died during the course of treatment on 24.01.2010. His wife and three
other members of the family dependent on him, including first to third
respondents (collectively, the claimants), instituted accident claim
case (Petition no. 229/2010) on 09.02.2010 seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the
averments that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part
of the said TSR driver. The TSR was admittedly insured against third
party risk for the period in question, with the appellant. The claim case
was decided on the basis of inquiry held. The tribunal, by judgment
dated 29.09.2011, returned a finding that the claimants had established
that the death had occurred due to injuries suffered in the said
accident. It awarded compensation in favour of claimants, placing the
liability at the door of the insurer.
2. The appeal was filed questioning the finding on the issue of
connection between the injuries suffered in the accident and the death.
3. It was admitted and put in the list of 'regulars' by order dated
03.02.2017. When it is called out, there is no appearance on behalf of
the appellant and the respondents.
4. The tribunal's record has been perused. It is found that the
claimants had proved the sequence of events leading to the occurrence
through the testimony of Jogender Singh (PW-2), an eye witness,
bringing home the negligence on the part of the TSR driver. The
evidence has also shown that though the victim was discharged on
14.01.2010, he died due to injuries on 24.01.2010. The absence of
post-mortem examination, in the opinion of this Court, cannot detract
from the fact that there is a close nexus between the injuries suffered
in the accident and the event of death.
5. Thus, the appeal is found devoid of substance and is dismissed.
6. By order dated 08.02.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest
with Registrar General of this Court within the period specified and
the same was kept in interest bearing fixed deposit account. By order
dated 09.01.2013, 50% of the awarded amount was permitted to be
released to the claimants. The balance shall now be released to the
claimants in terms of the impugned judgment.
7. Since the appellant has failed to appear at the hearing, the
statutory amount is forfeited as costs to be made over by the registry
to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2017
nk
