Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.10.2023
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Adv.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. MAC.APP. 455/2023 & CM APPL. 50922/2023
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 27.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Award‟) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) in MAC Petition no.790 of 2017, titled as Smt.Bholi & Anr. v. Sh. Ram Sagar Prasad & Ors..
3. It was the case of the claimants, that is, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, that on 08.07.2017, the deceased- Junaid was driving a TSR, bearing registration no. DL1RQ-7678, behind a Crane, bearing registration no. HR-55B-6462 (hereinafter referred to as „Offending Vehicle‟). At about 1:50 AM, when the deceased reached near Ring Road leading from Burari to Mukundpur Chowk, near Cemetery, Delhi, the driver of the Offending Vehicle suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which, the vehicle of the deceased collided with the Offending Vehicle from the rear side, causing it to entangle with the Offending Vehicle. Thereafter, the deceased was removed from the vehicle and taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for his medical examination. He was later shifted to Lok Nayak Hospital, where he unfortunately succumbed to his injuries.
4. The appellant challenges the Impugned Award on two grounds: a) That the learned Tribunal has erred in not attributing any contributory negligence on the deceased, as it was the deceased who had hit the offending vehicle from behind. b) That the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a higher rate of interest as well as default interest of 9% per annum.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that contributory negligence should have been attributed to the deceased inasmuch as, it was his vehicle that had hit the Offending Vehicle from behind due to his failure to maintain safe distance with the vehicle in front. In support of his submission he places reliance on Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as „Regulations‟) and on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nishan Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 765.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the driver and owner of the Offending Vehicle did not file their response to the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal. Their defence was struck off vide order dated 02.02.2018. The driver of the Offending Vehicle did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal nor entered the witness box. The appellant filed its written statement claiming statutory defence and exoneration from paying the compensation. The learned Tribunal in the Impugned Award has relied upon the testimony of Sub-Inspector, Nag Singh (PW-3), who was the Investigating Officer, the mechanical reports of the TSR and the Offending Vehicle, and the application made by the deceased to the SHO concerned soon after the accident, to conclude that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, that is the respondent no.3 herein. I may reproduce the relevant portion hereinunder:
8. Rule 23 of the Regulations reads as under:
9. The Supreme Court in Nishan Singh (supra) has opined that “sufficient distance” as mentioned in Rule 23 of the Regulations has not been elucidated upon in any regulations or elsewhere, in light of which “sufficient distance” would mean a gap of 2-3 seconds between two motor vehicles, so as to give sufficient time to the vehicle behind to avert a collision. Further, the Supreme Court in the case before it observed, that a gap of 10-15 feet between the truck and Maruti car behind it, was not “sufficient distance” and the driver of the Maruti car must take the blame.
10. Applying the same to the facts of the case at hand, it is established that the TSR of the deceased was being driven behind the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner inasmuch as it deviated from its path, causing collision with the vehicle of the deceased. Such sudden change in path of the Offending Vehicle could not have been pre-empted by the deceased. Even otherwise, the driver of the Offending Vehicle was the best person to throw light on the manner in which the accident place or to deny the above. He neither filed a reply to the Claim Petition nor appeared as a witness.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that contributory negligence should have been attributed to the deceased.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the rate of interest at 9% per annum, as well as the penal interest at 9% per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal, is not warranted. He submits that the rate of interest awarded on the compensation payable is higher than the prevailing rate of interest. He further submits that once simple interest has been awarded on the compensation payable, the appellant cannot be further made liable to pay default interest. In support of the same he places reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 370.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
14. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yad Ram and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1849, this Court has opined that the rate of interest awarded on compensation payable should be decided on a case-to-case basis, rather than having a fixed measure of the same, as what may be reasonable in one case may not be so in another. In this case, the accident had taken place on 08.07.2017, while the Impugned Award came to be passed on 27.07.2023. The appellant has not placed on record any material to show why the rate of interest at 9% should be declared as unreasonable. I find the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to be reasonable, and as such does not warrant interference by this Court.
15. As far as the question of default interest is concerned, in Keshav Bahadur (supra), the Supreme Court as observed as under:
16. In the present case, the learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Award, has awarded compensation of Rs.26,11,000/in favour of the respondent nos.[1] and 2 herein, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition, that is, 12.09.2017, till the date of its realization. However, while fastening the liability on the appellant, the learned Tribunal has further directed that in case the appellant fails to deposit the awarded sum within a period of 30 days from passing of the Impugned Award, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the said delay.
17. As the rate of interest remains the same, there is no default rate of interest granted by the Impugned Award. The above challenge is accordingly rejected.
18. I, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal and the pending application are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. The appellant shall deposit the awarded amount along with interest, with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today.
20. The appellant is exempted from depositing the statutory amount. In case the same has been deposited, it shall be returned to the appellant along with interest accrued thereon.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J OCTOBER 4, 2023