Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Lakra & Ors. vs Monu Kumar & Ors (Icici Lombard ... on 23 July, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23.07.2019
+ MAC.APP. 1019/2018 & CM No.48093/2018
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL LAKRA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Prateek Choudhary, Advocate.
Versus
MONU KUMAR & ORS (ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Suman
Bagga, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 30.10.2017
passed by the learned MACT in Petition No. 386/2017 on the basis of a
settlement between the parties, whereby an offer of Rs.10.75 lacs was
accepted by the appellants apropos the unfortunate demise of their son in a
road accident. He was all of 20 years of age and in the prime of his life.
The appellant no.1 i.e. the father of the deceased is stated to be recuperating
from an advanced stage of cancer and states that during the aforesaid
proceedings, he was not properly advised by his counsel and was not in the
best state of mind to have decided for himself. Therefore, he seeks
reopening of the case and for remand of the same for decision on merits.
2. The relief is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company. He submits that there was a statutory offer and sufficient time
was given to the appellants to consider the same and accept. The orders of
18.09.2017 and 30.10.2017 read as under:-
"18.09.2017
Present: Sh. Sunil Lakra, father of deceased with Sh. A. C.
Jha, Counsel
for LRs of deceased.
Sh. Vimal Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. S. K.
Sharma, Counsel for respondent no. 3 Insurance Company.
IO SI Prem Yadav in person. He is directed to supply copy of
DAR to the parties present.
Driver and owner not produced by IO SI Prem Yadav, who
has submitted that notice was duly served on them.
Fresh Court notice be issued to the driver and owner
and be given dasti to the IO for the next date.
Legal offer has already been filed. Copy given.
Counsel for petitioners seeks time for consideration.
Allowed.
Put up for settlement and further proceedings with the
connected matter now on 30.10.2017."
"30.10.2017
Present: Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Sunil Lakra witin Sh. A. C. Jha,
counsel for the petitioners.
Respondents No. 1&2 in person with their counsel Sh.
Suresh Bharti.
Sh. S. K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent No. 3
Insurance Company.
It is jointly submitted by the counsel for the petitioners
and Sh. S. K. Sharma, counsel for the Insurance Company
that they want to settle the claim.
Statements of petitioner No. 1, counsel for the petitioners
No. 2 & 3 and counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance
Company are recorded separately in this regard.
Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Sunil Lakra has also been examined
under Clause 26 of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed
Procedure (MCTAP).
Heard. Statements perused.
I am satisfied that the parties have settled the claim
without any inducement, force or coercion.
Vide separate judgment announced today, Award is
passed in terms of the statements.
Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
Copy of the Award be also sent to the Court of
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
A separate file be prepared for compliance and be put up
on 13.12.2017.
File be consigned to Record Room."
3. The appellants, with the assistance of a counsel, had considered the
settlement and had accepted the same. The impugned order records as
under:-
"6. Legal Offer/reply to DAR was filed by ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3),
wherein it is admitted that the offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra
Champion No. DL-1L-Q-6008 was insured with it vide Policy
No. 3003/A/108106529/00/B00, valid from 20.10.2015 to
19.10.2016, including the date of accident. It did not take any
statutory defence and offered to pay Rs. 9,05,952/- as
compensation to the petitioners, which was not accepted by
them.
7. Pending enquiry, petitioners and Sh. S. K. Sharma,
counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company further
negotiated and agreed to settle the claim for Rs. 10,75,000/-.
Statements of Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Lakra, Sh, A. C. Jha, counsel for the petitioners on behalf of
petitioners No. 2 Smt. Kusum & petitioner No. 3(Vis. Sanjana
and Sh. S. K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent No. 3 were
recorded separately in this regard.
8. Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Sunil Kumar @Sunil Lakra has also
been examined under Clause 26 of Modified Claims Tribunal
Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
9. I have heard Sh. A. C. Jha, counsel for the petitioners,
Sh. Suresh Bharti, counsel for the respondents No. 1&2 and
Sh. S. K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent No. 3. I have
carefully perused the record.
10. 1 am satisfied that the parties have settled the claim
without any inducement, force or coercion. In view of the
statements of the parties, I pass an award in the sum of Rs.
10,75,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Only)
as full and final compensation, for death of Sh. Rohit Lakra
S/o Sh. Sunil [email protected] Lakra, in favour of the petitioners
and against the respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company, who
has indemnified Sh. Bhola Ram Mehto, owner of the offending
vehicle (Respondent No. 2). Liability of respondent No. 3,
being the insurer is joint and several with other respondents."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The learned MACT had specifically examined and satisfied itself to
the fact that the parties had settled the claim without any inducement, force
or coercion. There is nothing on the record to indicate or suggest that the
appellants were under compulsion to accept the offer or had been misled by
their lawyeer. There is no notice issued to the earlier advocate, who
represented the appellants before the learned Tribunal, nor was any
complaint made to the Bar Council of Delhi in this regard.
5. In the circumstances, the aforesaid contention is untenable and is
accordingly rejected.
6. On 06.12.2017, the appellants had moved an application before the
learned Tribunal seeking recall of the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 on
the ground that the learned Tribunal had not granted them sufficient time to
the claimants to consider the offer. The application, inter alia, reads as
under:-
"7. That as per Hon'ble High Court order the justified
amount was not offer (sic) by the insurance company but in
hurry (sic) manner the father of (sic) deceased signed on the
paper as a compromise. It is pertinent to mentioned (sic)
here there was no time given by the predecessor court for the
consideration with his family and the mother of deceased was
not present before the court on the day of compromise."
7. Quite clearly, the stand of the appellants ranges from their counsel
forcing the appellants to accept the offer to the Court not granting them due
time to consider the same. The appellant no.1's statement apropos
acceptance of the settlement amount was recorded on 30.10.2017, which
reads as under:-
" My son Sh. Rohil Kaira had died in a vehicular accident
on 31.10.2015 at about 12.12 pm at Mundka to Peera Garhi
Road, Nangloi Flyover, Nangloi, Delhi, involving Mahindra
Champion No. DL-1L-Q-6008, driven by respondent No. 1
Monu Kumar. Besides me, my wife and adult daughter are
also petitioners in this case. My deceased son was unmarried.
I have brought my Aadhaar Card, as proof of identity and its
photocopy is Ex.C-1 (OSR). I have also brought Aadhdar
Card of my wife Smt. Kusum and its photocopy is Ex. C-2
(OSR).
Without any inducement, force and coercion, I
voluntarily accept the offer made by the counsel for the
Insurance Company to settle our claim for a sum of Rs.
10,75,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Seventy Rue Thousand Only) as
full and final compensation for death my son Sh. Rohit Lakra
in the accident.
Award may kindly be passed in terms of the settlement."
8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that initial
offer of Rs. 9,05,952/- was considered by the appellants and the learned
Tribunal too, rejected it but the subsequent enhanced offer of Rs.10.75 lacs
was accepted by the appellants without coercion.
9. In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference in the
aforesaid order.
10. Accordingly, the appeal, alongwith pending application, is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
JULY 23, 2019
sb
