United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Durga Dass & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. rs

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.311/2008 & CM Nos.7134-36/2008 % Judgment reserved on:29th August, 2008 Judgment delivered on:12th September, 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office No.2, 2nd Floor, Core 4 Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar New Delhi-110001 ….Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. Versus 1. Durga Dass @ Durga Prasad, S/o. Lt. Sodu Ram, 24/85, Trilokpuri, Delhi-91. 2. Jagdish Chand S/o. Ram Chander R/o. C-220, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-91 3. Suresh Chand Aggarwal S/o. Ram Richhpal R/o. C-230-A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-91 ….Respondents. Through: Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. +CM No.7136/2008 * Allowed, subject to all just exception. +CM No.7135/2008 * There is a delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly. +MAC App. No.311/2008 & CM No.7134/2008 * The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as "Act") against the order dated 28th January, 2008 passed by Dr. T.R. Naval, Preceeding Officer, MACT, Delhi (for short as "Tribunal"). 2. Brief facts of this case are that, on 21st January, 2004, at about 9.30 p.m., respondent No.1/Durga Dass, the injured in this case, was crossing road at 13 Block, Trilokpuri Bus stop through Zebra crossing, when a bus bearing No.DL-IPB-3884, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2/Jagdish Chand, hit the injured. As a result, respondent No.1 fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Later on, he was removed to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital. 3. Respondent No.1 has claimed compensation of Rs.3 lacs from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. Respondents No.2 and 3 herein, contested the case on the ground inter-alia, that no such accident was caused by the offending vehicle whereas, the appellant admitted this fact that offending vehicle was insured with it. 5. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs.1,90,141/- together with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. The driver claims to have got the driving licence renewed for a period of five years whereas, the licence for the heavy vehicle is renewed for a period of three years only. The investigator of the appellant/Company has inspected the record of the transport authorities but did not find the licence claimed to have been issued to the driver. 8. The other contention is that permanent injury of 65% was not of the whole body but of right limb only and thus the whole body disability could not have been more than 10%. 9. Admittedly, in the present case no permission under Section 170 of the Act has been obtained by the appellant from the Tribunal. 10. Section 170 of the Act reads as under:- "170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.-Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that – (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has filed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub- section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are availabl