Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance ... vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav And Ors on 4 September, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 965/2016
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.
versus
JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Adv. for R-
1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (MACP 36/2011- new MACT No.
15170/2015) was instituted by the first and second respondents
(collectively, the claimants) on 19.01.2011, seeking compensation on
account of death of their bachelor son Vipin Yadav in motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 12.11.2010, on the basis of averments that
the collision against the motorcycle of the deceased (bearing
registration No HR 35C 8213) had occurred due to negligent driving
of Tavera Car bearing registration no. HR 55FT 7798 (the car) by the
third respondent, it being registered in the name of fourth respondent
and admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant
insurance company (insurer). The tribunal accepted the said case and,
by judgment dated 19.07.2016, awarded compensation fastening the
liability to pay on the insurer.
2. The insurer, by the appeal at hand, assails the judgment of the
tribunal primarily on the ground that there was no evidence to show
the involvement of the car or negligence on the part of its driver,
conclusions having been drawn on the basis of copies of record
relating to the corresponding police case, in which the subject accident
was investigated, questions also being raised respecting the
correctness of the compensation awarded.
3. The learned counsel for the claimants at the hearing fairly
conceded that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428
and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 and of this Court in MAC Appeal
No. 165/2013, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devki & ors. decided
on 29th February, 2016, it was the obligation of the claimants to prove
not only the involvement of the offending vehicle but also negligence
on the part of its driver. He also fairly conceded that in the police
investigation an eye witness account was available and, therefore, it
was possible for the claimants to have him summoned and examined
him to prove the necessary facts. Against the above backdrop, while
fairly conceding to the appeal of the insurance company to be allowed
on the above narrow issue, he requested, on instructions, that the
matter may be remitted to the tribunal so that the claimants get an
opportunity to discharge their burden of proof.
4. The impugned judgment is set aside. The claim case of the first
and second respondents is remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry
in the course of which the claimants will be given opportunity to lead
additional evidence, particularly, on the issue of involvement of the
car and negligence on the part of its driver. Needless to add, the
parties which contest shall also be given opportunity to lead evidence
in rebuttal, if any. The contentions of the parties on the question of
computation of compensation are reserved and may be agitated before
the tribunal at the time of fresh adjudication.
5. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 12th October,
2017. The presence of third and fourth respondents (driver and
registered owner of the offending vehicle) at the hearing on appeal
was dispensed with by order dated 25.01.2017. Before proceeding
further with the fresh inquiry, the tribunal shall issue notices to secure
their presence.
6. The amount of compensation deposited by the insurance
company in terms of interim order 18.11.2016 with accrued interest
shall be refunded by the tribunal to the insurance company.
7. The statutory deposit shall also be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2017
nk
