Mac. App. No. 229 of 2013. Case: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Barkha Sharma and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Mac. App. No. 229 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.K. Soni, Advocate and For Respondents: Deepa Rai, Advocate |
| Judges | G. P. Mittal, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 173; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 |
| Citation | 2015 (I) ACC 522 (Del) |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
G. P. Mittal, J.
-
The Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Limited impugns the judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) and seeks reduction of the compensation of Rs. 50,80,000 which was awarded to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the death of Gulshan Sharma, who succumbed to the fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 10.11.2010 at about 10.50 p.m. at M.B. Road, Near K.S.S. Ring Road, New Delhi. There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. First, that the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was not established and second, the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive in as much as although the deceased Gulshan Sharma was getting a salary of Rs. 2,99,620, at the same time, a sum of Rs. 2,320 per month was being received by him towards transport allowance which was incidental to his employment which was to be used to commuting to and fro home to the place of the employment, yet the Claims Tribunal included the same in his income while computing the loss of dependency.
-
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents supports the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal and urges that the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium was on the lower side.
Negligence
-
The Claims Tribunal appraised the testimony of PW-9 Ram Kumar, an eye-witness to the incident, registration of the criminal case and the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and opined that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. DL-1GB-6524 by its driver. The relevant discussion from para 6 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:
6. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M.V. Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No. 1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. To prove this issue, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the statement of PW-9, Shri Ram Kumar, who is an eye-witness to the accident and has deposed that on 10.11.2010, he was riding his motorcycle and when he had reached in front of Tuglakabad Fort, one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3S-AW-3307 was already going ahead to his motorcycle and at about 10.50 p.m. the offending vehicle i.e. Dumper Truck bearing registration No. DL-1GB-6524 came from the side of Badarpur and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial