Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Dr. Arun Kumar And Others on 10 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 10, 2018
+ MAC. APP. 156/2013
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
DR. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 29th September, 2012 grants compensation of
`9,49,512/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondents-claimants on account
of death of one Sapna aged 23 years in a vehicular accident on 30th July,
2009.
2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the petition are
that on 30.7.2009 at about 11.50 AM the deceased was
going on scooty no. DL-7-SBD-8102 from Delhi to
Ghaziabad and when she reached Sales Tax Office, Mohan
Nagar, a Truck bearing no. UP-15AT-0074 coming from
behind at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent
manner hit the scooty of deceased. It was further alleged
that the deceased sustained fatal injuries and she was
removed to the hospital where she died. It was further stated
that the FIR no.1607/09 under Section 279/304A IP was
registered at PS Sahibabad, District Sadar, Ghaziabad, UP
with regard to the accident. It was also averred that
postmortem of the deceased was conducted in M.M.G.
Hospital Ghaziabad, UP."
3. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as "the
Tribunal") and the breakup of compensation awarded is as under:-
1.) Loss of dependency : `9,19,512/-
2.) Funeral Expenses : `10,000/-
3.) Loss of Estate : `10,000/-
4.) Loss of Love and Affections : `10,000/-
Total : `9,49,512/-
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that insured vehicle was being plied
without any valid permit and so, recovery rights ought to be granted to
appellant against owner and driver of the insured vehicle.
5. As per order of 10th November, 2014, service is complete. Owner
and driver of the insured vehicle in question have not come forward. It is
matter of record that owner and driver of the vehicle in question have
neither contested before the Tribunal nor this Court.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that as per evidence of witness from concerned RTO
office, the owner of vehicle in question had got the permit cancelled on
29th July, 2009 i.e. a day before this accident. Meaning thereby, there was
no valid permit in respect of the vehicle in question on the day of the
accident. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the vehicle in question
was having a valid permit on the day of the accident. Consequentially,
impugned Award is modified to the extent of granting recovery rights to
appellant against driver and owner of the vehicle in question.
7. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurer. Awarded
compensation be released forthwith to respondents-Claimants in terms of
impugned Award.
8. With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2018
s
