Delhi High Court
Thd Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Asha Ram Yadav & Ors. on 14 November, 2017
$~R-477
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 328/2012
THD ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
ASHA RAM YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (suit no. 170/10) of the first
respondent (the claimant), the tribunal, by its judgment dated
07.12.2011, held that he had been injured, giving rise to cause of
action to seek compensation, on account of motor vehicular accident
that had taken place at about 6.30 a.m. on 12.08.2007 due to negligent
driving of motor vehicle described as Tata Dumper bearing
registration no. HR 55E 6416 by the second respondent (driver)
holding him to be the principal tort-feasor and the third respondent,
concededly the registered owner of the said vehicle, vicariously liable,
jointly and severally. Since the vehicle in question was insured against
third party risk for the period in question with the appellant (insurer),
the liability to pay the compensation determined by the tribunal was
fastened upon it.
2. The appeal at hand is pressed by the insurer to argue that it is a
case of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant on which
the finding deserves to be recorded with consequences to follow.
Having heard the learned counsel for the insurer and having gone
through the tribunal's record, this court finds no substance in the said
submission.
3. The claimant was employed as Assistant Sub-Inspector with
Delhi Police during the relevant period. He was on official duty at the
place where the accident occurred, accompanied by constable Ishwar
Singh, both having arrived there on the motorcycle. As per the version
of constable Ishwar Singh, before the police in the course of
investigation into the corresponding case, and of PW-1, before the
tribunal, read together, the victim was crossing the road from one side
to the other to have a vehicle unauthorisedly and improperly parked
removed. It is during the said venture that he came to be hit by the
vehicle insured with the appellant, the version of the claimant being
that the vehicle was driven in a rash and uncontrolled speed. In the
pleadings, the driver of the offending vehicle had tried to shift blame
on to the claimant by stating that it was he who was negligent as he
was crossing the road by not waiting for the oncoming traffic, his plea
also being that he was moving at a normal speed. The evidence of the
claimant, however, has remained unimpeached, particularly because
the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined in the inquiry
before the tribunal. The plea that the speed of the dumper was within
limits cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if this was the case
the driver would have been in a position to avoid collision against the
person crossing the road on foot from one side to the other.
4. The appeal is, thus, found devoid of substance and dismissed.
5. By order dated 26.03.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit 75% of the awarded amount with upto date interest
with the Registrar General. By subsequent order dated 01.06.2012,
50% of the deposited amount was permitted to be released to the
claimant. The balance shall now be released to the claimants in terms
of the judgment of the tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit
the balance amount of the award with upto date interest within thirty
days with the tribunal so as to be made available to be released to the
claimant.
6. The statutory amount shall be refunded, only after proof is
shown of the award having been satisfied.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
nk
