Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Neetu Verma & Ors on 10 October, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: October 10, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 967/2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
NEETU VERMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, Adv.
for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The claim petition (MACT No. 1086/2007) instituted on
19.12.2007 by the first and second respondents (collectively, the
claimants) sought compensation under the structured formula in terms
of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of
Ravinder Kumar in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
14.05.2007 while he was driving truck bearing registration no. HR-69-
4524.
2. The Tribunal after inquiry, by judgment dated 16.09.2015,
accepted the above said claim and awarded compensation in the total
sum of Rs.4,72,500/- fastening the liability on the appellant which was
the insurer of the stationary truck. The background facts as noted in
the impugned judgment reveal that the deceased was driving truck
bearing registration No.HR-69-4524 on way from Pathankot to
Ludhiana and in the area of Ladowal Chowk, Ludhiana at about 03:45
am his truck rammed into the stationary truck insured with the
appellant, the latter vehicle being parked on the road side without
caution light.
3. The insurer in its appeal submits that it is inherent in the
aforementioned facts that the accident occurred due to the negligence
on the part of the deceased himself and, therefore, the liability could
not have been fastened against it. Reliance is placed on the decision
of a bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court reported as
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sinitha & Others; (2012) 2 SCC
356. An earlier decision of a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the
Supreme Court reported as Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda; (2004) 5 SCC 385, however, has
taken a contrary view in the context of claims under Section 163-A of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after taking note of the special provision
under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ruling (in para 66)
that "(Section 163-A of the Act) covers cases where even negligence is
on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166
and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of."
4. In above view the plea of negligence is rejected. The appeal is
dismissed.
5. The insurance company had been directed by order dated
11.12.2015 to deposit the entire awarded amount with the Registrar
General of this Court within a specified period as pre-condition to stay
against the execution of the award. By subsequent order dated
29.01.2016, 50% of such amount was allowed to be released to the
claimants, the balance required to be put in fixed deposit with the
Tribunal rather than the Registrar General of this Court. The Tribunal
shall now release the balance amount lying in the fixed deposit to the
claimants.
6. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant-
Insurance Company.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 10, 2017
ak
