Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Reena Kumari & Ors. on 16 November, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 296/2013 and CM 38160/2017
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate
versus
REENA KUMARI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Ms. Pankaj
Kumari, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (suit no.433/2009) instituted on
02.05.2005 by the first to third respondents (collectively, the
claimants) sought compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the death of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju
Kumar on 04.03.2005 at a place just ahead of Toll Plaza near
Badarpur Border. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju Kumar was the driver of
truck bearing registration no.HR-38G-4745 which was owned by the
fourth respondent (since deceased) who had engaged him for such
purposes as an employee. The truck was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question.
It is an admitted case of the claimants that the death had occurred on
account of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju Kumar being stabbed by certain
miscreants who had waylaid him with the truck at the place of the
incident, this forming subject matter of investigation by first
information report (FIR) no.167/2005 under Sections 392, 397, 302
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of police
station Badarpur, Delhi.
2. The contention of the claimants before the tribunal was that the
death having been caused as a result of culpable homicide of Sanjay
Kumar @ Sanju Kumar, at a time when he was driving the truck,
amounted to an accident that had occurred during the course of use of
the truck and, therefore, the invocation of Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 was appropriate.
3. The insurance company while resisting the case not only
contended that the claim could not fall within the four corners of the
jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), there
being no nexus, as per its submission, between the death and the
accident as is a pre-requisite under Section 163-A, it also contended
that the deceased was not a third party in such respect and, therefore, it
could not be called upon to indemnify the owner.
4. In the given fact situation, though the tribunal has rejected the
objection on the first above noted aspect, inter alia, with reference to
the ruling in Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company
Ltd. and Anr., II (2000) ACC 291 (SC), the impugned judgment is
conspicuously silent on the question of "third party".
5. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that in view of the omission on the part of the tribunal to
render a clear decision on above aspect, the impugned judgment may
be set aside, but his request was that the matter may be remitted to the
tribunal for appropriate and complete adjudication. Ordered
accordingly.
6. The claim case is thus remanded to the tribunal for fresh
adjudication by the tribunal including on the question of the defence
of the insurance company that it cannot be held liable for the reason
that the deceased was not a third party in its respect. Since the
insurance company had also come up with other contentions having a
bearing on the quantum of compensation, all such pleas are reserved
and may be re-agitated before the tribunal. The parties are directed to
appear before the tribunal on 19.12.2017.
7. By order dated 05.04.2013, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date accrued
interest with the Registrar General who was directed to retain the said
amount in fixed deposit. The amount thus deposited with accrued
interest and the statutory amount shall presently be refunded to the
insurance company.
8. This disposes of the appeal and the application filed therewith.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 16, 2017
yg
