Delhi High Court
Manju Bala & Ors vs Sabbir & Ors on 20 November, 2017
$~ 8 & 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 20th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 815/2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth with Mr. Shumik
Mazumdar, Advocates.
versus
MANJU BALA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratap Singh with Mr. Rajveer
Nanwal, Advocates.
+ MAC.APP. 853/2017 & CM APPLN. 34504-506/2017
MANJU BALA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth with Mr. Shumik
Mazumdar, Advocates.
versus
SABBIR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratap Singh with Mr. Rajveer
Nanwal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Babu Ram Gola, aged 47 years, described as a qualified
Ayurvedic Doctor, earning his livelihood from medical practice, died
due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
15.04.2014. His wife and three children (collectively, the
claimants) instituted accident claim case (Suit No. 544 / 2014) on
03.07.2014, alleging that the accident had occurred when the
motorcycle driven by the deceased was hit by truck bearing
registration No. HR-29V-3177 (the truck) driven by Sabbir (driver) in
negligent manner. The truck admittedly was registered on the relevant
date in the name of Gurdev Singh (owner), another respondent in these
appeals, and was concededly insured against third party risk with New
India Assurance Company Limited (insurer), the appellant in MAC.
Appeal No. 815/2016.
2. The Tribunal held inquiry and returned finding, by judgment
dated 16.05.2016, accepting the case of the claimants about the
accident having been caused leading to the death on account of
negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. It awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.24,35,000/- and directed the insurer to
pay with interest @ 9% (nine per cent).
3. The insurer has come up in appeal (MAC. Appeal No.815/2016)
submitting that there was no evidence led on the issue of negligence
on the part of the truck driver and, therefore, the finding is without
basis. The insurer also questions the computation of compensation.
Per contra, the claimants have also come up in appeal (MAC. Appeal
No.853/2017) submitting that the income of the deceased was wrongly
assumed, the income tax return for assessment year (AY) 2013-14
having been ignored. The claimants, thus, seek enhanced
compensation.
4. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants fairly
conceded that the evidence on the issue of negligence has not been
properly brought out before the Tribunal during the inquiry. Thus,
agreeing to the request of the insurer for the impugned judgment to be
set aside, the request was made by the claimants for grant of further
opportunity to lead additional evidence particularly on the issues of
negligence and income of the deceased.
5. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, the impugned
judgment is set aside. The claim case is remanded to the Tribunal for
further inquiry in accordance with law. In the course of further
inquiry, the claimants will be called upon to lead additional evidence
whereafter the respondents will be given similar opportunity to lead
additional evidence in rebuttal, if any. The Tribunal shall then pass a
fresh judgment not feeling bound by the view taken earlier on any of
the relevant aspects.
6. By order dated 07.10.2016 in MAC. Appeal No. 815/2016, the
insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded
amount with up to date interest at 9% per annum with State Bank of
India, Saket Courts Branch, the bank having been directed to retain it
in the account of first claimant Manju Bala. The order was modified
later by order dated 28.11.2016 to the effect that the entire deposited
amount along with interest was to be transferred to the claimants in the
form of fixed deposit receipt to enable them to withdraw only the
interest accrued thereon. The learned counsel for the insurer submits,
and the counsel for the claimants confirms, that instead of strict
compliance with the above directions, the amount was deposited by
the insurer with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and the
claimants have been receiving the accrued interest periodically from
such deposit. The Registry shall ensure that the amount deposited is
made available to the Tribunal which shall retain it in the form of
fixed deposit receipt for a period of six months with provision for auto
renewal. The existing arrangement of payment of accrued interest to
the claimants shall continue. The amounts which have been received
or will be received in future by the claimants under such arrangement
will be subject to adjustment against the principal amount awarded at
the time of fresh adjudication by the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal will have the liberty to apply the principal amount
in such deposit to be retained in a fixed deposit account in terms of the
fresh adjudication.
8. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company.
9. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
21.12.2017.
10. Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
srb
