Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Shrestha & Ors. on 19 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 19, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 521/2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Mr. Garva
Dhyani, Advocates
Versus
SHRESTHA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta and Ms. Aruna
Mehta, Advocates
+ MAC.APP. 522/2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Mr. Garva
Dhyani, Advocates
Versus
KIRAN ARORA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta and Ms. Aruna
Mehta, Advocates
+ MAC.APP. 529/2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Mr. Garva
Dhyani, Advocates
Versus
MASTER RISHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta and Ms. Aruna
Mehta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned three appeals arise out of impugned Award of
13th December, 2014 vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(henceforth referred to as „the Tribunal‟) has awarded compensation of
₹11,99,700/-with interest @ 9% p.a. to legal heirs of deceased-Gulzari
Lal, aged 50 years, Assistant Manager in a private company, who died in
a vehicular accident, which took place on 20th January, 2005.
2. In this unfortunate accident, a Tailor-Shrestha, aged 43 years was
grievously injured and the Tribunal vide impugned Award has granted
compensation of ₹1,71,885/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to her, which is
under challenge in these appeals. In this accident, a minor child-Rishi,
aged about ten months was also injured. Compensation of ₹3,91,527/- has
been granted by the Tribunal to Injured-Rishi.
3. Since these three appeals arise out of one vehicular accident,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
4. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that on
20/01/2005 Sh. Gulzari Lal (deceased in the first petition)
alongwith his wife Kiran, sister Shrestha (injured in the
second petition) sister-in-law Sunita and grand son of his
cousin Master Rishi (injured in third petition) had gone to
attend the marriage in a Maruti Car No.DL-6CE-0116
which was being driven by respondent No.1. While they
were returning after attending the marriage and at about
1.30 a.m. when they reached at Mangolpuri Ordinance
Depot Crossing, then one unknown truck came from the
opposite direction and hit with each other. Resultantly, the
deceased in the first petition died and other injured in
second and third petition sustained injuries respectively."
5. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon
evidence of Injured-Shrestha (PW-11) and that of Claimants/legal heirs of
deceased and other evidence on record.
6. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that in view of Supreme Court's
decision in Civil Appeal No. 1427/2018 Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar
and Ors., rendered on 6th February, 2018, the registered owner of a
vehicle is liable to pay the awarded compensation. It is submitted that the
registered owner of the insured car in question is Punjab National Bank
and therefore, appellant-Insurer has no liability to pay the awarded
compensation.
7. On the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of respondents-Claimants
and the injured that Supreme Court's decision in Naveen Kumar (supra)
has no application to the facts of the instant case as in the said decision,
there was no valid Insurance Policy and so, in that context, the registered
owner of the vehicle was made liable to pay the awarded compensation.
Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 to submit that whoever is driving a vehicle on the road, must have a
valid Insurance Policy. It is submitted that the Insurance Policy was
obtained by respondent-Rajpal and by virtue of being the insurer of the
car in question, the liability is of appellant-Insurer to pay the awarded
compensation.
8. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that Supreme Court's decision in
Naveen Kumar (Supra) is distinguishable as it was rendered in a case,
where the vehicle was uninsured and since the vehicle in the instant case
is insured, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to rely upon Supreme
Court's earlier decision in Purnya Kala Devi vs. State of Assam and
Another, (2014) 14 SCC 142 wherein it has been declared that the
definition of owner has to be considered in the context of a person, who is
in actual possession of the said vehicle.
9. Undisputedly, in the instant case respondent-Rajpal was in actual
possession of the insured vehicle and he had valid insurance in respect of
the vehicle in question, from appellant-Insurer. While applying the
dictum of Purnya Kala Devi (supra) to the facts of the instant case, it is
held that the liability to pay the awarded compensation is of appellant-
Insurer. Such a view is taken as from the reply to the claim petition filed
by respondents-PNB and Sheetal Khanna, it is established that the vehicle
in question was sold to respondent-Rajpal, who had got it insured from
appellant. Pertinently, there is no challenge to the quantum of
compensation granted. Therefore, the compensation granted is not being
interfered with.
10. In view of the aforesaid, finding no substance in these three
appeals, they are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
v
