Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Chaman Goyal & Ors. on 12 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 12, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 129/2013
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. A K Soni and Mr. Pavan
Kumar, Advocates
Versus
CHAMAN GOYAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,
Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 30th October, 2012 grants compensation of
`1,81,800 /- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to respondent/injured-
Chaman Goel, aged 25 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by
him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 16th January, 2010. The
facts, as noticed in the impugned Award, are as under:-
"The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner, are that on
16.01.2010 the petitioner was going on motorcycle bearing
No. DL-7SAR-8229 and when he reached near Sant Nagar,
paper mill choraha golchakkar, Noida, one tempo bearing
registration No. DL-1LJ-3845, driven at a high speed and
reckless manner, came and hit the motorcycle. The petitioner
fell down and suffered grievous injuries. It is stated that an
FIR No. 62/10, under section 279/338/427 IPC was
registered against the driver of the tempo. It is also stated
that petitioner was working as collection executive and was
getting salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month."
2. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") has relied upon
evidence of injured and as per discharge summary of the injured, he had
sustained grievous injuries on his left leg. The break up of the
compensation is as under :-
Compensation towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of earning of petitioner for 1 month @
Rs. 17,000/- per month Rs. 17,000/-
Expenses towards medical bills Rs. 1,04,800/-
Compensation towards conveyance and
special diet (without bills) Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,81,800/-
3. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer assails impugned Award on
the ground that the Insurance Cover Note relied upon by the Tribunal is
fake. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the evidence of
R3W1- Ankur Garg. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-
owner supports the impugned Award and maintains that the
compensation granted is just and proper.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award and the evidence
on record, I find that owner of the insured vehicle in question has proved
on record the original Insurance Policy as Ex. R2W1/1. It is true that it
has come in cross-examination of witness R2W1-Ram Gopal, owner of
the insured vehicle that he does not remember if he has received the
Insurance Policy by hand or by post. It is relevant to note that the
Insurance Policy in respect of the insured vehicle in question was issued
in March, 2009 whereas the cross-examination of this witness (R2W1)
was conducted in March, 2012.
5. After lapse of three years, it is quite natural for any witness not to
remember as to whether the document was received by hand or by post.
It is relevant to note that the signatures of the duly constituted attorney on
the Insurance Policy (Ex. R2W1/1) matches with the signatures on the
sample Insurance Policy produced by the appellant-Insurer.
6. The Tribunal in the impugned award has rightly discarded
appellant's plea of the Insurance Cover Note/Insurance Policy in question
being fake, after matching the signatures of the authorised constituted
attorney on the Insurance Policy (Ex. R2W1/1) with the signatures on the
sample Insurance Policy issued on 13th November, 2008. Since there is
no basis to doubt the authenticity of the Insurance Policy (Ex. R2W1/1),
therefore, negligence of R2W1-owner of the insured vehicle in not
obtaining any receipt regarding the premium paid to the insurance agent
for issuing the Insurance Cover Note, would not justify shifting of the
liability to pay the compensation from the insurer upon the owner of the
insured vehicle. Such a conclusion is arrived at after going through the
evidence of R2W1- Ram Gopal, owner of insured vehicle and the
evidence of Ankur Garg, Sales Manager of appellant company.
7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no substance in this appeal and as
such, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2018
p
