Delhi High Court
Universal Sompo General ... vs Sushila Devi & Ors. on 27 November, 2017
$~R-573
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 908/2012
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED. ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
SUSHILA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By judgment dated 05.06.2012, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Tribunal) decided accident claim case (suit no.328/2010)
which was instituted by first to fourth respondents (collectively, the
claimants) on 16.11.2010, seeking compensation on account of death
of Vidya Prasad, in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
18.09.2010, due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as
Maruti Van bearing registration no.DL-3C-AD-3358 (Van). The
tribunal returned a finding on the basis of evidence led during inquiry
that the accident had indeed been caused due to negligent driving of
the van by the fifth respondent (Hansraj) who is also the registered
owner of the said vehicle. During the inquiry, reliance had been
placed on the certificate-cum-policy of insurance admittedly issued by
the appellant (insurer) in respect of the vehicle covering third party
risk for the relevant period. The insurer, however, took the plea that
the said insurance policy had been obtained by the fifth respondent by
committing fraud and mis-representation of facts with regard to the
insurance policy for the previous year. This plea was rejected by the
tribunal and the liability to pay the compensation determined by the
impugned judgment placed at the door of the insurer.
2. The appeal was filed by the insurer questioning the above
decision of the tribunal.
3. The appeal was put in the list of 'Regulars', to come up on its
own term as per order dated 11.02.2016. When it is called out for
hearing, on its turn, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent has been heard and
record perused.
5. The very fact that the insurance company had issued the
certificate-cum-policy of insurance for the period in question and there
were no steps taken for cancellation of such policy justifies the view
taken by the tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of
substance and is dismissed.
6. By order dated 24.08.2012, the insurer had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch. By a subsequent order dated
12.10.2012, fifty percent (50%) of the awarded amount was permitted
to be released to the claimants. The Registry shall now release the
balance with accrued interest to the claimants in terms of the
impugned judgment.
7. Since the insurer did not appear at the final hearing to assist,
statutory deposit is forfeited as costs to be made over to Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2017
yg
