Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Nahar Singh

Delhi High Court · 22 Jan 2016 · 2016:DHC:557
R. K. Gauba
MAC.APP No.790/2012
2016:DHC:557
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, upholding the tribunal's discretionary grant of interest and refusing interference due to the appellant's laches.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC.APP No.790/2012 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd January, 2016
MAC.APP. 790/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R C Mahajan, Adv.
VERSUS
NAHAR SINGH ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. D. Hasija and Mr. Anirudh Singh, Advs. for R-1 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. The insurance company is in appeal raising the grievance that the benefit of the order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) holding the claimants (first to fifth respondents herein) not entitled to interest for the period 26.05.2006 to 06.11.2006, was not given when the claim petition was finally disposed of by the judgment dated 18.02.2010 awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.21,51,340/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.

2. The appeal is being resisted by the claimants, inter alia, on the ground that the insurance company (the appellant) itself has been guilty 2016:DHC:557 MAC.APP No.790/2012 of laches as demonstrated by order dated 15.07.2010 whereby the application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC was dismissed on account of unexplained delay, and further by the fact that the insurance company had earlier come up to this Court in appeal (MAC.APP.No.716/2011) which was withdrawn on 03.05.2012 seeking liberty to file two separate appeals, inasmuch as the other grievances raised concerned the tax deduction at source which is stated to be presently subject matter of another appeal (EFA No.32/2012) separately pending before another bench of this court.

3. Having regard to the above conduct of the appellant, and the fact that the grant of interest was a matter of discretion exercised judicially by the tribunal, there is no cause for any interference.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

5. The stay granted vide order dated 27.07.2012 is vacated.

6. Order dasti.

R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) JANUARY 22, 2016 VLD