Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Reserved on: 22 November, 2011
th
Pronounced on: 25 November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 820/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Santosh Paul Advocate with
Mr. Arvind Gupta Advocate.
Versus
ABDUL RAHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak, Advocate
for the Victim.
Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the Order?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Order should be reported
in the Digest?
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns
the award dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on the ground that Jilajit Singh
(Respondent No.3) did not possess a valid driving licence at the
time of the accident, yet the Insurance Company was made
liable to pay the compensation of ` 3,20,000/-. It was not given
the right to recover the compensation ordered to be paid. It is
averred that the compensation ordered to be paid is excessive.
MAC APP 820/2010 Page 1 of 3
2. Abdul Rahman (Respondent No.1) sustained injuries while he
was riding on his bicycle on 04.12.2004 at 3:20 PM and
proceeding to his house from Shastri Park. He was hit was a
truck bearing No.DL-1LE-0578 while it was driven rashly and
negligently by its driver Jilajit Singh, Respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.1 suffered compound fracture of both bones in
his left leg resulting into permanent disability of 35%. The
Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of
rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of truck
number DL-1LE-0578 and awarded the compensation as
under:-
nd
Reserved on: 22 November, 2011
th
Pronounced on: 25 November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 820/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Santosh Paul Advocate with
Mr. Arvind Gupta Advocate.
Versus
ABDUL RAHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak, Advocate
for the Victim.
Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the Order?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Order should be reported
in the Digest?
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns
the award dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on the ground that Jilajit Singh
(Respondent No.3) did not possess a valid driving licence at the
time of the accident, yet the Insurance Company was made
liable to pay the compensation of ` 3,20,000/-. It was not given
the right to recover the compensation ordered to be paid. It is
averred that the compensation ordered to be paid is excessive.
MAC APP 820/2010 Page 1 of 3
2. Abdul Rahman (Respondent No.1) sustained injuries while he
was riding on his bicycle on 04.12.2004 at 3:20 PM and
proceeding to his house from Shastri Park. He was hit was a
truck bearing No.DL-1LE-0578 while it was driven rashly and
negligently by its driver Jilajit Singh, Respondent No.3.
3. Respondent No.1 suffered compound fracture of both bones in
his left leg resulting into permanent disability of 35%. The
Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of
rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of truck
number DL-1LE-0578 and awarded the compensation as
under:-
| 1. | Compensation towards pain and<br>suffering | ` 50,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Loss of amenities | ` 40,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of income during treatment | ` 19,800/- |
| 4. | Future loss in earning capacity due to<br>disability | ` 1,02,960/- |
| 5. | Attendant charges for four months<br>(` 4,000/- per month) | ` 16,000/- |
| 6. | Expenses towards medical bills | ` 60,325/- |
| 7. | Reasonable future medical expenses | ` 15,000/- |
| 8. | Compensation towards conveyance and<br>special diet (without bills) | ` 15,000/- |
| TOTAL<br>rounded off | ` 3,19,085/-<br>` 3,20,000/- |
MAC APP 820/2010 Page 2 of 3
4. It is settled that the onus to prove that there was breach in the
terms of the conditions of policy is on the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company did summon a witness from the
Regional Transport Authority but preferred to close its evidence
on 26.05.2010 without examining witness or without seeking
any future opportunity for producing any evidence. The
Appellant, therefore, cannot make any grievance against the
Tribunal’s findings that the Appellant had failed to establish
that there was violation of the policy condition to avoid liability
under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. (National
Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC
297).
5. The Appellant has failed to show as to how the compensation
awarded was excessive or unreasonable. The award of
compensation, therefore, cannot be interfered with.
6. The appeal is without any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed and the impugned award is confirmed.
7. Pending applications also stands disposed of.
8. Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for information.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 25, 2011
vk
MAC APP 820/2010 Page 3 of 3