M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sampati Devi & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 14 Jul 2017 · 2017:DHC:3530
R. K. Gauba
MAC Appeal No. 203/2009
2017:DHC:3530
motor_vehicle_accident_compensation appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal, holding that under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insurers are liable to pay compensation irrespective of negligence.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC Appeal No. 203/2009 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th July, 2017
MAC.APP. 203/2009
M/.S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
SAMPATI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1 to R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)

1. The appellant had issued insurance policy against third party risk in respect of three wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DL- IRE-5153 (TSR) covering the relevant period and, by the impugned award on the claim petition (MACT New No.747/08/2005) of the first to fifth respondents (the claimants), has been burdened with the liability to pay compensation on account of death of Laxman Singh due to involvement of the said TSR being driven on public road, the claim having been made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The insurance company presses the appeal only on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision, it being truck bearing registration No.HR- 38C-8329. Even if such plea were to be accepted, for purposes of the 2017:DHC:3530 MAC Appeal No. 203/2009 claim of the private respondents herein, it would have no effect, in as much as from their perspective it would be a case of composite negligence, the deceased Laxman Singh being passenger in the TSR. Even further, it has to be remembered that the claim was pressed and granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which purposes the issue of negligence is inconsequential.

3. Thus, the appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.

4. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant insurance company

5. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above terms. R.K.GAUBA, J JULY 14, 2017 vk