Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Ramesh & Ors on 18 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 18, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 1038/2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parveen K. Mendiratta, Adv.
Versus
RAMESH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nitika Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
+ MAC.APP. 1039/2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parveen K. Mendiratta, Adv.
versus
MASTER ROHIT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nitika Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
+ MAC.APP. 1041/2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parveen K. Mendiratta, Adv.
versus
MEENA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nitika Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
MAC. APP. Nos. 1038/2016, 1039/2016 & 1041/2016 Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned three appeals relate to a vehicular accident
which took place on 15th October, 2012 in which a motorcycle driver and
two pillion riders were injured. Vide separate impugned Awards of even
date, that is, 22nd September, 2016, compensation has been granted to the
respondents-Injured by the Tribunal. With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the above captioned three appeals have been heard
together and are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. In the above captioned first appeal, the challenge is to impugned
Award vide which compensation of ₹ 3,10,000/- with interest at the rate
of 9% p.a. has been granted to respondent/Injured- Ramesh on account of
grievous injury sustained by him in this vehicular accident. In the above
captioned second appeal, the impugned Award under challenge grants
compensation of ₹ 65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to
respondent/Injured-Rohit on account of the injuries suffered by him in
this vehicular accident. The above captioned third appeal questions
impugned Award vide which compensation of ₹60,000/- with interest @
9% p.a. has been granted to respondent/ Injured-Meena on account of
simple injuries sustained by her in this vehicular accident.
3. The factual background of these appeals as noticed in the
impugned Awards is as under :-
"I am residing at address mentioned above. Today i.e.
15.10.2012 at about 8.30 a.m, I along with my wife (Meena)
and son (Rohit) was going to Bahadur Garh, driving my
motor-cycle no. DL4S BK 7346 When I reached old machhi
market chowk, Sultanpuri main road, a tractor was seen
coming from bus stand of bus route no. 908. It was being
driven at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently, by
respondent, it hit my motor-cycle. We all fell down on road
along with our motor-cycle and suffered injuries. The driver
of said tractor was overpowered by public. I suffered
injuries on my left leg while my son suffered injuries on his
right leg. My motor-cycle was also damaged. Said accident
took place due to rashness and negligence of driver of said
tractor."
4. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") has relied upon
evidence of injured and the documentary evidence on record. On the
strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The
breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to Injured-Ramesh is as
under:-
Head of Compensation Amount(in Rs.)
Medical Expenses ` 14,994/-
Special Diet ` 25,000/-
Conveyance ` 20,000/-
Pain & Suffering ` 1,00,000/-
Loss of enjoyment of life ` 1,50,000/-
Total ` 3,09,994/-
(rounded off)
` 3,10,000/-
The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to Injured-
Master Rohit is as under:-
Head of Compensation Amount(in Rs.)
Medical Expenses ` 10,000 /-
Special Diet & Conveyance ` 5,000/-
Pain & Suffering ` 50,000/-
Total ` 65,000/-
The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to Injured-
Meena is as under:-
Head of Compensation Amount(in Rs.)
Medical Expenses ` 10,000 /-
Pain & Suffering ` 50,000/-
Total ` 60,000/-
5. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer assails impugned Awards on
the ground that the Tribunal has observed that the driver of the insured
vehicle- tractor was having driving licence for motorcycle and light motor
vehicle (private) but he was driving a tractor with trolley which is a
commercial vehicle. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurer
that despite observing so, the Tribunal has erred in not granting recovery
rights to the Insurer against the driver and owner of the tractor with
trolley. It is also submitted on behalf of the Insurer that the Injured-
Ramesh was not having a valid driving licence and thus contravened
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as there were two pillion riders on
the motorcycle driven by him. It is also pointed out that one of the pillion
riders, Meena was not wearing a helmet. So, it is submitted that it is a
case of contributory negligence and thus, compensation awarded deserves
to be suitably reduced.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents-injured supports
the impugned Award and maintains that the compensation granted is just
and proper.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that Injured-Ramesh in his evidence has categorically
deposed that driver of tractor in question was driving the tractor rashly
and negligently towards Aman Vihar without giving any signal and he
turned his tractor which led to happening of this accident and after this
accident, the driver of tractor in question had tried to flee away but he
was caught by the public at the spot and the site plan of the spot was
drawn. The cross-examination of Injured-Ramesh, who was driving the
motorcycle in question reveals that there was no worthwhile cross-
examination of this witness-Ramesh on the negligence aspect.
8. Perusal of evidence of Injured-Ramesh and the site plan of the spot
persuades this Court to hold that the negligence was of driver of the
insured vehicle-tractor and no inference of contributory negligence arises
from a stray line cross-examination of the Injured-Ramesh regarding his
not carrying driving licence on the date of accident. The injured who was
pillion rider was not wearing a helmet but on this account contributory
negligence cannot be attributed to her. The compensation awarded to the
Injured appears to be just and reasonable. No case for interfering with the
impugned Awards is made out. Hence these appeals are accordingly
dismissed.
9. The above captioned appeals are disposed of with direction that
statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurer.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 18, 2018
SRwt
