Full Text
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27th January, 2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Through: Ms. H. Bhargav, Advocate for Respondent no.1.
Mr. S.S. Mahaur, Advocate for Respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns judgment dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.14,54,005/- was awarded in favour of Respondent no.1 for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident which 2015:DHC:778 occurred on 12.10.2011 at about 13:30 hrs.
2. It may be noted that the instant claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). The Appellant Insurance Company in terms of the agreed procedure made an offer of Rs.6,90,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of Respondent no.1. The said offer was however, not accepted. Thus, the Claims Tribunal proceeded to compute the compensation on merits without going into the proof of negligence.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that once the offer was not accepted, the petition under Section 166 of the Act was to be decided on merits. Issue of negligence was also required to be framed and decided. This question was gone into by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Kalra, 2012 Vol(131) DRJ 171. Paras 8 to 13 of the report in Asha Kalra(supra) are extracted hereunder:
(ii) To the Claimant (s) or victims of the accident or their legal representative(s), as the case may be at the address supplied by the Claimant to the investigating police officer, free of charge;
(iii) To the owner/driver at the addressed supplied by the owner /driver to the police investigating officer, at a cost of Rs. Five per page;
(iv) To the nodal officer of the concerned Insurance
Company at a cost of Rs. ten per page. (3) The Investigating Officer of the Police shall also furnish a copy of Detailed Accident Report along with complete documents to Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority, Central Office, Pre-Fab Building, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Delhi Legal Services Authority shall examine each case and assist the Claims Tribunal in determination of the just compensation payable to the claimants in accordance with law. (4) Where the Investigating Officer is unable to complete the investigation of the case within 30 days for reasons beyond his control, such as cases of hit and run accidents, cases where the parties reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court cases, where the driving licence is issued outside the jurisdiction of the Court, or where the victim has suffered grievous injuries and is undergoing treatment, the Investigating Officer shall approach the Claims Tribunal for extension of time whereupon the Claims Tribunal shall suitably extend the time in the facts of each case. (5) The Investigating Officer shall produce the driver, owner, claimant and eye-witnesses before the Claims Tribunals along with the Detailed Accident Report. However, if the Police is unable to produce the owner, driver, clamant and eye-witnesses before the Claims Tribunal on the first date of hearing for the reasons beyond its control, the Claims Tribunal shall issue notice to them to be served through the Investigating Officer for a date for appearance not later than 30 days. The Investigating Officer shall give an advance notice to the concerned Insurance Company about the date of filing of the Detailed Accident Report before the Claims Tribunal so that the nominated counsel for the Insurance Company can remain present on the first date of hearing before the Claims Tribunal. (6) The duties enumerated in Clause (3) and (4) above shall, as per Rule 3(2) of the 2008 Rules be construed as if they are included in Section 60 of the Delhi Police Act 1978 (34 of 1978) and any breach thereof shall entail consequences envisaged in that law, as provided for under Rule 3(2).”
10. Thus, as per Rule 4 (2) of the Agreed Procedure, the IO is required to forward a copy of the DAR to the Nodal Officer of the Insurance Company on payment of charges @ `10/- per page.
11. Rule 4 (5) of the Agreed Procedure lays down that the IO shall give an advance notice to the Insurance Company about the date of filing of the DAR before the Claims Tribunal so that the nominated counsel for the Insurance Company can remain present on the first date of hearing before the Claims Tribunal.
12. Rule 6 (3) of the Agreed Procedure enjoins an Insurance Company to communicate its reasoned decision to the Claims Tribunal through its designated officer within a period of 30 days on receipt of DAR. This reasoned decision is basically a legal offer given by the Insurance Company to the Claimant. If the same is accepted by the Claimant, the matter comes to an end and an order is required to be passed by the Claims Tribunal in view of the offer by the Insurance Company and its acceptance by the Claimant.
13. Rule 6 (6) of the Agreed Procedure talks about situation where the legal offer is not acceptable to the Claimant or where the Insurance Company has a defence available to it under the law in that eventuality, the DAR has to be inquired into as a Claim Petition under Section 166 or 163-A of the Act.”
4. In view of the above judgment, Detailed Accident Report(DAR) ought to have been treated as the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and decided in accordance with law.
5. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained; the same is accordingly, set aside.
6. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 27.02.2015.
8. Trial Court Record be returned through Special Messenger.
9. Since this accident occurred on 12.10.2011, a lot of time has been wasted on account of passing of the impugned order and the instant appeal. It is expected that the Claims Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the petition expeditiously.
10. Pending applications stand disposed of.
11. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, if any, shall also be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2015 pst