Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pammi Nagi & Ors. on 2 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 02, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 235/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
PAMMI NAGI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 27th November, 2012 grants compensation of
`35,90,900/- on account of death of one Rakesh aged 49 years in a
vehicular accident. The facts, as noticed in the impugned Award, are as
under: -
"Brief facts as narrated in petition in nutshell are that
on 22.02.2010 at about 11.45 p.m the victim was travelling
along with respondent no. 1 as a pillion rider on a
motorcycle bearing registration no DL-8SAQ-4989 and when
they reached in front of Shanti Bhawan, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi, the respondent no. 1 hit the motorcycle against
the divider consequently causing fatal injuries to Sh Rakesh
Nagi (victim/pillion rider). The claim of the claimants is that
the alleged accident was caused by respondent no. 1 who was
driving the aforesaid motorcycle in rash and negligent
manner without observing traffic rules. It was further
claimed that on the date of death Sh. Rakesh Nagi was about
MAC.APP. 235/2013 Page 1
48 years and was earning Rs. 37,333/- per month by working
as Assistant Supervisor at Blues Jewelery Company situated
at G-13, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi. On these
premises, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs. 90 lakhs."
2. The break-up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as
under: -
Loss of dependency : ₹35,40,900.00
Loss of consortium : ₹10,000.00
On account of Love and affection : ₹25,000.00
Funeral Expenses : ₹15,000.00
Total : ₹35,90,900.00
3. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is not on the quantum, but on the ground that the
insured vehicle was not involved in this accident and that there was no
negligence on the part of driver of insured vehicle. No evidence was led
by appellant-Insurer before the Tribunal. However, by way of additional
evidence, appellant has got examined an eye-witness Rajpreet Singh
Vohra as AW-3, who has not supported the case of appellant.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record as well as additional evidence led, I find that there is no basis
for this Court to take a contrary view than the one taken by the Tribunal,
as the additional evidence does not advance the case of appellant. In view
thereof, finding no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. Statutory
deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant-Insurer. Registry is directed to
release the compensation deposited by appellant-Insurer to respondents-
Claimants in the manner as indicated in the impugned Award.
MAC.APP. 235/2013 Page 2
5. In aforesaid terms, this appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 02, 2018
s
MAC.APP. 235/2013 Page 3
