Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 77 (DEL)

New India Assurance Co. v. Hari Singh

2014-01-08

SURESH KAIT

body2014
Judgment : Suresh Kait, J. (Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.05.2006, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.4,26,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it was not mentioned in the claim petition that the vehicle by which the injured was travelling was hit by the offending vehicle No. RJ-02-C-2855 for the reason that the accident in question was in fact of a hit and run case and no accident was occurred with the offending vehicle as noted above. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that the claimant had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and same was converted into Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Ld. Counsel has fairly conceded that under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the negligence need not to prove. However in the present case, the offending vehicle was not involved at all. Therefore, the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. 5. The case of respondent no. 1 was that on 06.03.2003, he was travelling in a Jeep ‘Armada’ bearing no. RJ-02-C-2853 which was being driven by respondent no. 2, Dr. Om Prakash Aggarwal. When they crossed check post at Shahjahanpur Police Station, District Alwar, Rajasthan, at about 3.30 a.m., their vehicle was hit by a Tempo TATA 407 RJ-02-C-2855. Due to the impact of the said accident, respondent no. 1 sustained grievous injuries on his right leg. 6. The appellant/insurance company admitted that the Jeep ‘Armada’ was insured for 3rd party risk vide policy no. 330600/31/02/02789 w.e.f 27.06.2002. The appellant took a preliminary objection that their liability to make the payment could not be invoked under third party clause since the claimant suffered injuries in a hit and run case and the driver/owner of the insured vehicle was not at fault in the accident in question. 7. The alternative plea taken by the appellant/insurance company was that their liability could not be invoked unless it is proved that respondent no. 2 was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 8. 7. The alternative plea taken by the appellant/insurance company was that their liability could not be invoked unless it is proved that respondent no. 2 was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 8. Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation is payable in a case of death or permanent disablement of a person due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, as per structured formula given in second Schedule to the Act. Sub-section 2 of Section 163-A of the Act clearly stipulates that the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to wrongful act or neglect or default of owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. 9. It is well settled law that Section 163-A of the Act incorporates the principles of ‘No fault liability’ and it is the mere use and involvement of vehicle that would make the owner and obviously the insurer, subject to just exceptions, liable to compensate the claimant. 10. In the present case, evidence of PW1 established that he was travelling in ‘Armada’ Jeep no. RJ-02-C-2853 which was being driven by respondent no. 2. It is an uncontroverted and unrebutted fact. 11. The claimant has filed on record certified copy of FIR no. 64/2003 under Section 279/337 IPC lodged with PS-Shahjahanpur as Ex.PW1/2 which was recorded at the instance of respondent no. 2, Dr. Om Prakash Aggarwal, who informed the police that his ‘Armada’ Jeep was badly damaged in the accident in question; and resulted into injuries of his friend Sh. Hari Singh, i.e., respondent no. 1, who was travelling with him. Injured PW1 has proved grievous injuries suffered on his right leg ultimately resulted in amputation below knee which is the direct and proximate cause of the outcome of the accident. 12. To establish the compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, sufficient evidence has been produced by the claimant which has been considered by the ld. Tribunal and granted the compensation accordingly. 13. I do not find any substance in the instant appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Compensation amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the respondent/claimant. 15. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant. CM. NO. Tribunal and granted the compensation accordingly. 13. I do not find any substance in the instant appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Compensation amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the respondent/claimant. 15. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant. CM. NO. 14205/2006 With the dismissal of the instant appeal, instant application has also become infructuous and dismissed as such.