Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Habib And Ors. on 26 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26th April, 2019
+ MAC.APP. 01/2016
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh
Thakur, Advocate.
versus
1. HABIB
2. AZAD
3. KISMAT
4. ISMAIL
5. AJIT YADAV @ LALU YADAV (DRIVER)
6. MANOJ KUMAR (OWNER) ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Rohtagi,
Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
JUDGMENT
I. S. MEHTA, J.
1. Instant appeal is arising out of common judgment and award
dated 15.10.2015 in consolidated MACT No. 530/13 and in MACT
No. 531/13 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh Presiding Officer,
MACT-02, (Central) Delhi (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal)
whereby compensation of Rs. 2,99,951/- and Rs. 17,98,705/- was
awarded to Claimants in MACT No.530/13 and to Claimants in
MACT No. 531/13 respectively at interest rate of 9% p.a. from the
date of filing of petition i.e. 28.10.2013 (DAR) till its realization.
2. Brief facts stated are that on 11.06.2013 at about 12:30 A.M.
(midnight) Naina (claimant in MACT No.530/13) alongwith one
Sonia, Nasiran (deceased in MACT No.531/13) and two other
persons were travelling in car bearing No. HR-72A-4045 (Swift
car). When aforesaid car crossed Silver Oak Chowk Red Light
suddenly a Truck bearing No. HR-38-0287 (hereinafter called as
offending vehicle) driven by driver Ajit Yadav (Respondent No.5
herein) coming from Mehrauli, Delhi in a very high speed, rash
and negligent manner hit the said Swift car. As a result Naina and
Nasiran @ Usha sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Naina
was admitted in Max Hospital vide MLC No. 5113 on 11.06.13
while Nasiran @ Usha was admitted in Paras Hospital vide MLC
No. 2195 on 11/06/2013. An FIR, FIR No. 134/2013 under
Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC was got registered at P.S. Sector-
24, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon against driver.
3. Thereafter, claim petitions MACT No. 530/13 and 531/13
were filed by the respective claimants on 28.10.2013 against
Respondent No.5 (driver of the offending vehicle), Respondent
No.6 (owner of the offending vehicle) and Appellant (Insurer of the
offending vehicle).
4. Respondent No.5 and 6 filed joint written statement and
submitted that Swift car came from wrong side of the road in high
speed, rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.5 tried to save
the car, in this process, driver of Swift car itself hit the truck with a
great force. Therefore, the driver and owner are not liable to pay
any compensation. They have categorically denied the contents of
the petition.
5. Appellant, Insurance Company filed written statement and
submitted that offending vehicle was insured on the date of
incident. The insurance company has submitted that they are not
liable to pay any amount of compensation as the driver of the
vehicle was not holding a valid and effective license to drive the
vehicle. Moreover, offending vehicle was not having authorized
and valid route permit. As such, Insurance Company has no
liability to pay any compensation or to indemnify Respondent No.5
and 6.
6. Thereafter, issues were framed on 22.03.2014 by the
Tribunal.
7. In order to establish the claim, injured Naina examined
herself as PW1, Sh. Hayat Ali examined himself as PW2, husband
of deceased Nasiran examined himself as PW3, Mohd. Tanveer
examined himself as PW4 in MACT No.530/13. Sh. Kulbhushan
Yadav examined himself as PW1 and Sh. Mohit Kumar examined
himself as PW4 in MACT No. 531/13.
The Respondent No.5 and 6 did not lead any evidence.
Appellant Insurance Company examined its officer as R3W1 in its
defence.
8. On basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties,
impugned award was passed. Aggrieved from impugned award,
appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal.
9. The Appellant has challenged the impugned Award on the
following grounds: -
i. That Ld. Tribunal erred in holding Respondent No.5 as
sole negligent in spite of the fact that driver of the car
was negligent who tried to cross the chowk at midnight
without caring for the traffic on road.
ii. That Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that it was a case
of Res-Ipsa Loquitor and at the most both the drivers
were equally negligent and the liability should have been
apportioned accordingly.
iii. That Ld. Tribunal failed to follow latest law of this
Hon'ble Court according to which no future prospects are
to be awarded in case of minimum wages.
iv. That award by Ld. Tribunal is based on conjectures,
surmises and does not appeal to a legal mind.
v. That Ld. Tribunal erred in not exonerating the appellant
in view of the fake licence being held by the Respondent
No.6 instead of awarding only recovery rights.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondent
No.1 to 4 submitted that compensation awarded by Ld. Tribunal is
fair, just and reasonable and the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
11. The Claimant/injured Naina in MACT No. 530/13 has
examined herself as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A as
examination-in-chief. She deposed that on 11.06.2013 at about
12:30 am (midnight) she alongwith one Sonia, Nasiran @ Usha
(deceased) and two other persons were travelling in Swift car
bearing No. HR-72A-4045 and while crossing Silver Oak Chowk
Red Light suddenly offending vehicle coming from Mehrauli,
Delhi in very high speed, rashly and negligently hit the Swift car.
As a result of which she and Nasiran @ Usha sustained grievous
injuries. Nasiran later succumbed to her injuries. Injured Naina
relied upon documents i.e. Medical treatment papers Ex.PW1/1
(colly), medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (colly) and photograph Ex.PW1/3.
12. The evidence of Naina PW1 was not cross-examined by
Respondent No.5 and 6. Her statement thus remains unrebutted on
the point of negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle on
the relevant point of time.
13. The Appellant has also preferred appeal in MAC. APP.
No.4/2016 arising out of case No. 530/2013 and raised similar
issues which are raised in the present appeal. The said appeal was
dismissed on 20.07.2017. Consequently, the remaining grounds
raised in this appeal i.e. (i) (ii) (iv) and (v) of para 9 also losses its
significance as the same has been considered and already rejected
by this Court in MAC. APP. No. 4/2016.
14. As far as the contention of the Appellant that no future
prospects is to be awarded in case of minimum wages are
concerned, this point has already been considered by the
constitutional bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680
wherein it has been held that the benefit of future prospects cannot
be denied to a self-employed person.
15. As such, no ground is made out to intervene in the
impugned award dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal. Thus,
the present appeal is accordingly dismissed and impugned award is
upheld. The awarded amount of compensation be released in
favour of claimants in terms of the impugned award.
16. Trial Court record be sent back together with a certified
copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 26, 2019
