Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravinder Kumar Sood & Ors. on 19 September, 2017
$~R-225
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 470/2010
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani and Mr. P.
Acharya, Advocates
versus
RAVINDER KUMAR SOOD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Akanksha Sood, a bachelor, aged about 25 years, having
attained the Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration, employed
at a gross annual salary of Rs.3,04,000/- suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on the intervening night of
25.07.2003 and 26.07.2003 due to the negligent driving of a truck
trailor bearing registration no.HR-29G-3067 and died in the
consequence. It may be added here that the deceased was travelling at
the time of the accident in Ambassador car bearing registration
no.HR-55BT-1239 which had been hit by the said truck from wrong
side, this becoming the cause of the accident. The parents and
siblings of the deceased, they being first to third respondents
(collectively, the claimants) instituted accident claim case (suit
no.640/2003) on 10.11.2003 seeking compensation .
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 16.03.2010, returned a finding that the
accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the truck, the
appellant / insurance company being the insurer of the truck, having
been fastened with the liability to pay the compensation, which was
determined in the total sum of Rs.22,07,500/-, it inclusive of loss of
estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection.
3. The insurer of the truck is in appeal to question the impugned
judgment on the ground that the finding on the issue of negligence is
incorrect and that the tribunal committed error by factoring in the
element of future prospects of increase in income.
4. Both the contentions of the appellant must be rejected. It is
noted that the tribunal has gone by the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The
facts and circumstances relating to the accident were brought out by
the evidence adduced, they clearly showing that the car in which the
deceased was travelling had been hit by the truck from wrong side.
Noticeably, no effort was made, not even by the appellant / insurer, to
bring on record the version to the contrary, from the side of the truck
driver. In these circumstances, the finding returned by the tribunal
does not call for any interference.
5. It is noted that the claimants had proved the regular
employment of the deceased with Daksh E Services Pvt. Ltd. (vide Ex.
PW-1/4). Having regard to the terms and conditions of the said
engagement and given the educational qualifications commensurate
with the post she held, irrefutable evidence showing prospects of
increase in the income in future had been brought out which could not
have been ignored. [see United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla &
Ors., MAC.APP. 548/2013, decided on 28.03.2016]
6. In above view, the appeal of the insurer is found to be devoid of
substance. It is dismissed.
7. By order dated 13.08.2010, the appellant had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with interest and from out of such
deposit, 50% (fifty percent) was allowed to be released to the
claimants. The balance shall now be released to them in terms of the
impugned judgment.
8. The statutory amount shall stand forfeited as costs in favour of
the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
yg
