MAC. App. 214/2010 and 804/2011. Case: Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ors. Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC. App. 214/2010 and 804/2011 |
| Judges | R. K. Gauba, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 149(2), 166, 173 |
| Judgement Date | January 21, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
R. K. Gauba, J.
-
Both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the M v. Act") arise out of judgment dated 31.10.2009 of the motor accident claims tribunal ("the tribunal") passed in claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the MV Act presented by the legal heirs of Aasha Gulati who had died as a result of the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at 10:30 AM on 01.10.2005 at the junction of the roads known as Faiz Road and, DBG Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi involving bus bearing registration no. DL-1PA- 6854 ("the offending vehicle").
-
The offending vehicle at the time of the accident was statedly driven by Achche Lal ("the driver") in a rash/negligent manner. It was registered in the name of Jagmal Singh Yadav ("the owner) who admittedly had taken out an insurance policy against third party risk for the period in question from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ("the insurer").
-
The tribunal, by the impugned judgment, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,10,800/- with interest payable at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition (07.12.2005) till realization, apportioning it amongst the various legal heirs and making arrangement for due protection of the amounts thus granted.
-
The tribunal upheld the contention of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and, thus, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. Absolving the insurance company of any responsibility, the tribunal nonetheless directed it to pay compensation to the claimants within the period specified, also according to it the recovery rights against the owner.
-
The owner of the offending vehicle, feeling aggrieved, preferred appeal (MACA no. 214/10) impleading the insurer as the first respondent and the claimants as second to fourth respondents, in addition to the driver as fifth respondent, questioning not only the recovery rights granted to the insurer contending that no case for such liberty had been made out, but also the computation of compensation stating, inter-alia, that the evidence adduced on record did not justify the income of the deceased to have been worked out in the sum of Rs. 14,700/- per month.
-
The claimants submitted cross-objections in the appeal taken out by the owner of the offending vehicle. The said cross-objections were submitted with application (CM No. 15846/11) seeking condonation of delay. The said cross objections have since been registered as independent appeal (MACA no. 804/11). For reasons set out in the aforesaid application, the delay is condoned.
-
Inspite of wait, and the matters having been passed over several times today, none has appeared on behalf of the owner (appellant in MACA no. 214/10). It is noted that this was the state of affairs even on the last date of hearing. By order dated 29.09.2015, opportunity had been given to the parties to submit brief synopsis. No written synopsis of arguments have been submitted by any of the parties including the owner (appellant in MACA no. 214/10). Given the old pendency of these matters, there is no reason to adjourn once again. Thus, arguments have been heard on behalf of the claimant and the insurer who are present through their respective counsel.
-
Since the owner as well as the claimants have questioned the computation of the compensation by the tribunal through the impugned award, the said question needs to be considered first. The deceased Asha Gulati was stated to have been employed as an administrative officer with a private entity doing business in the name and style of Ridhav...
To continue reading
Request your trial