Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dev Karan & Ors on 8 August, 2019
$~44 to 47 & 51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 08.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 1034/2018 & CM APPL. 48754/2018
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Versus
DEV KARAN & ORS ..... Respondents
+ MAC.APP. 1035/2018 & CM APPL. 48789/2018
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Versus
MALA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
+ MAC.APP. 1037/2018 & CM APPL. 48799/2018
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Versus
NATHI RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
+ MAC.APP. 1039/2018, CM APPL. 48804/2018 & CM APPL.
48805/2018
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Versus
LAL CHAND JHA & ORS ..... Respondents
+ MAC.APP. 641/2019 & CM APPL. 28921/2019
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Versus
SUDAMA BHAGAT & ORS ..... Respondents
MAC.APP. Nos.1034, 1035 of 2018 & conn. appeals Page 1 of 4
Through: Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate
for Appellant.
Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
for R-1 & 2 in Item no. 44.
Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate
for R-1 to R-3 in Item no. 45.
Mr. Vinay Tomar, Advocate
for R-1 & 2 in Item No. 46.
Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate
For R-1 & 2 in Item no. 47.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. The award of compensation passed by the learned MACT has been
impugned on the ground that the Notification dated 22.05.2018, enhancing
the scheduled amount of compensation for a fatality, is applicable from the
date of the Notification and not retrospectively. It is contended that since the
accident occurred prior to the date of the aforesaid Notification, the earlier
rates would be applicable.
2. This Court has already dealt with the aforementioned issue, in an
earlier case i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd vs. Rihana & Ors.
MAC. APP. No. 589/2019, decided on 26.07.2019, inter alia, as under:-
" The Court, however, would refer to the dicta of the
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC
572, wherein it was held that if on the date of the decision of the
claim petition, the awarded amount was less than the earlier
notified amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, then the
duly notified amount shall be payable. However, if the amount
awarded earlier was more than the notified amount, then the
larger amount would be payable...."
3. In other words, the minimum amounts that would be payable by the
insurance company would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, if the award
computed on the basis of the pre-revised note alongwith interest thereon is
higher, then the higher amount shall be payable.
4. Let the insurance company compute the award in terms of the above
within four weeks from today and deposit the money, alongwith interest
accrued thereon, before the learned Tribunal within the same period of time,
for disbursement to the beneficiaries of the Award in terms of the scheme of
disbursement specified therein.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants/beneficiaries have no objection
to the aforesaid directions.
MAC.APP. 1035/2018
6. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks right of recovery of the
compensation amount from the owner/driver of the insured vehicle.
7. The owner/driver of the vehicle i.e. Chote Lal passed away in an
unfortunate accident.
8. The learned Trial Court has dealt with the issue as under:-
"19. No doubt R2W1 in his examination in chief
testified that wife of deceased Chote Lal failed to produce the
driving licence despite sending a notice under Order XII Rule
8 CPC, but during inquiry insurance company failed to
produce any cogent evidence to prove that deceased Chote Lal
was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident,
indisputably, police had not only registered the FIR but also
filed a final report as untraced but in the said report it is
nowhere mentioned that Chote Lal was not holding a driving
licence at the time of accident. Admittedly, during inquiry,
Chote Lal also died, thus mere fact that the wife of Chote Lal
failed to produce the driving licence is not sufficient to hold
that Chote Lal was not holding a valid driving licence at the
time of accident. Since the insurance company failed to
produce any cogent evidence, I am of the view that insurance
company failed to establish that there was any wilful breach of
any term and condition of the insurance policy on the part of
Chote Lal."
9. Evidently, the widow and the minor children knew nothing about
Chote Lal's motorcycle or his license. In the circumstances, the right of
recovery cannot be granted against them.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, alongwith interest accrued
thereon, be returned to the appellant.
11. All the five appeals are disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 08, 2019
AB
