Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.08.2023
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Gaurav Nair & Mr.Rahul Saxena, Advs.
Through: Mr.Jalaj Agarwal & Mr.Atul Agarwal, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MACP No. 160/2014, titled Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Ganga Prasad &Ors.
2. The above Claim Petition was filed by the Claimants/respondent no. 1 and 2 herein, stating that on 28.09.2013 at about 10:30 PM, Shri Vijay Rai, the deceased, along with his friend, Shri Umesh Rai, were going on bicycles. When they reached Mahipalpur Road in front of a Girls School, a truck bearing registration no.HR-55N-3355 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Offending Vehicle’), being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 3 herein, hit the bicycle of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where he unfortunately expired on 12.10.2013.
3. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.3 herein. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,01,647/- as compensation in favour of the respondent nos.[1] and 2 herein/claimants. It was further directed that the appellant herein shall deposit the awarded amount in the bank account of the claimants within 30 days of the passing of the Award, failing which, it shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting a right to recover the compensation paid in favour of the respondent nos.[1] and 2 from the respondent nos.[3] and 4, the driver and the owner of the Offending Vehicle. He submits that as per the investigation report received from the private investigator appointed by the appellant, the driving licence of the respondent no.3, on the date of the accident, was fake/not genuine. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to a report dated 09.03.2015 issued by one Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate/Investigator.
5. The learned Tribunal, however, has rightly rejected the above submission of the appellant, placing reliance on the testimony of R2W2- Shri. Raj Kumar, Clerk from ARTO Mathura, who was a witness produced by the owner of the Offending Vehicle. I may quote the relevant observation of the learned Tribunal as under:-
6. In absence of any evidence that would contradict the above finding of the learned Tribunal, mere report of the private investigator cannot sustain the challenge to the impugned Award. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the above finding of the learned Tribunal.
7. The next challenge of the learned counsel for the appellant to the Impugned Award is on account of the determination of ‘loss of dependency’ assessed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in adding 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
8. I find no merit in this challenge of the appellant. It had come on record that the deceased at the time of the accident had a permanent job and was aged only about 34 years. In terms of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 50% of the actual salary of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, has, therefore, been rightly made by the learned Tribunal.
9. The last challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is by stating that the accident had, in fact, taken place due to the negligence of the deceased himself.
10. I again find no merit in the challenge of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence led by the parties before it, to arrive at a conclusion that the accident had indeed taken place due to the Offending Vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.3 herein. I would do no better than to quote the relevant observations of the learned Tribunal, as under:-
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal. The same, along with the pending applications, is dismissed. The appellant shall also pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent nos.[1] and 2.
12. The appellant, in terms of the order dated 29.11.2016 has deposited the entire awarded amount with the learned Tribunal. By an order dated 02.02.2017, 50% of the awarded amount was directed to be released to the respondent nos.[1] and 2/ the claimants. As the appeal has been dismissed, the balance awarded amount, along with interest accrued thereon, be released in favour of the respondent nos.[1] and 2 herein.
13. The amount of cost to be paid by the appellant shall also be deposited by the appellant with the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks and the same shall be released in favour of the respondent nos.[1] and 2/claimants by the learned Tribunal.
14. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall, however, be released to the appellant, along with interest accrued thereon.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 22, 2023/rv/am