MAC.APP.--474/2011. Case: TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KEDARNATH & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC.APP.--474/2011 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | April 10, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10th April,
+ MAC.APP. 474/2011
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, Advocate versus
KEDARNATH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent
No. 1 and 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
-
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal whereby compensation of 4,76,000/- was awarded for the death of Tej Prakash, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred
27.04.2006.
-
There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. First, negligence on the part of the driver of two wheeler bearing no.DL-4S-AD was not established and second, the compensation awarded
excessive as in the absence of any evidence with regard to good prospects, addition of 50% was not permissible.
-
On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents no.1 and 2 that negligence of the driver was sufficiently established from testimony of PW2. It is urged by him that the compensation awarded is too meagre and low and the same needs to be enhanced.
NEGLIGENCE
-
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in respect the accident, FIR No. 370/2006 was registered at Police Station Dwarka, Delhi. Statement of Abhay Kumar, driver of the two wheeler was recorded and on the basis of that statement, the criminal case was sent as untraced. It is urged that as per the statement made by earlier said Abhay Kumar, some unknown vehicle had dashed against the two-wheeler from behind which was the cause of the accident. Thus, learned counsel for the Appellant argues that the accident caused on account of negligence of an unknown vehicle and insurer of two wheeler bearing no.DL-4S-AD-7824 is not liable to pay compensation for want of any negligence on the part of the driver the two-wheeler.
-
The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of negligence and discussed in detail the statement of Vasudev (PW2) , an eye witness of accident.
-
Eye-witness to the incident namely Vasudev, PW-2 deposed that the date of the incident, he was present near the place of incident he saw the motorcycle in question being driven at a very fast speed by Respondent no.1 Abhay Kumar, on which Tej Prakash was sitting the pillion seat. He further deposed that the said motorcycle was being driven at a fast speed and its driver lost control over it. PW-2...
To continue reading
Request your trial