Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sangita Singh & Ors. on 12 October, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 12th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 126/2016
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
SANGITA SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Adv. for
R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. There were two victims in a motor vehicular accident that took
place on 11.03.2015 involving a motor vehicle described as dumper
bearing registration no. HR 38S 1647 (the dumper) which was
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company, the accident having become the subject matter of
investigation by police through first information report (FIR) No.
292/2015 of police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi. One of the victims,
Syed Ahsan Raza, was injured while the other victim, Jay Vardhan
Narayan Singh, died as a result of injuries suffered. The police
investigated into the FIR and submitted detailed accident report
(DAR) before the motor accident claims tribunal which registered it as
a claim petition (suit no. 193/2015), pursuant to the directions in Smt.
Rajesh Tyagi vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO 842/2003. The insurance
company, when called upon to respond, submitted legal offer. But, it
appears that the legal offer in the context of fatality was not acceptable
to the next of kin, first and second respondents (Collectively, the
claimants). The tribunal, by judgment dated 02.12.2015, passed award
in both the cases on the basis of submissions made against the above
backdrop, the compensation in the injury case being Rs. 12,000/- and
in the case of death, it being Rs. 79,63,120/-.
2. The appeal at hand questions the procedure applied by the
tribunal in the death case, it being clarified that there was no need for
any such questions to be raised in the injury case, the amount of
compensation being paltry.
3. Having gone through the record, this court finds merit in the
objections raised by the appellant. If the legal offer was not
acceptable to the claimants, the case had to be converted into a regular
claim case and subjected to the normal procedure of inquiry wherein
not only pleadings would be called for but also opportunity given to
both sides to lead evidence. No such inquiry having been made, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is therefore, set aside. It
may be added that the same tribunal has been following similar
procedure in several other cases, such approach having been
disapproved by this Court in previous rulings. For illustration one may
refer to the judgment dated 22.08.2017 Saroj Gupta & Anr. vs. Hariom
Chaudhary & Ors in MACA No. 148/2017. It is hoped that such
errors will not be committed in future.
4. In order to ensure, however, that the claimants are not deprived
of just compensation to which they may be entitled in law, the matter
is remitted to the tribunal for proper inquiry and adjudication. For
such purposes, the parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on
16th November, 2017. All contentions of both sides are reserved.
5. In terms of order dated 08.02.2016, the insurance company had
been directed to deposit the amounts stated in the legal offer with the
tribunal within 30 days thereof and such amount was allowed to be
released to the claimant in the ratio of 70: 30 in favour of the first and
second respondents, the same put in fixed deposit interest bearing
account in their respective names with right to draw monthly interest.
Such arrangement of payment only of interest will continue during the
pendency before the tribunal. It is made clear that the principal
amount shall not be released till the case is decided afresh. Suitable
direction shall be given by the tribunal in its decision in such regard.
The amount already received would be adjustable against the final
order that may be passed by the tribunal.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2017
nk
