United India Insurancwe Co v. Vijay & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No. 297/2008 & CM No.6725/2008 % Judgment reserved on: 29th July, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 4th August, 2008 United India Insurance Co., DRO-2 Scopa Minar, Laxmi Nagar Delhi-110092. ….Appellant Through: Mr.S.L.Gupta with Mr.Ram Ashray, Advs. Versus 1.Vijay Karketta Alias Rohan S/o Shri Raju Karketta, R/o House No.5, S-Block, Sardarpur Colony, Sector-45, Noida. 2.Shri Sukhdev Singh (Driver) S/o Shri Tara Singh, R/o Village Bandoli, P.S.Ramgarh, Distt Alwar, Rajasthan 3.Shri Ashok Chug (Owner) s/o Shri J.L.Chug. R/o A-171, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. …Respondents. Through: Nemo. 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. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed by the Appellant against the award dated 10.01.08 passed by Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.12.2000 at about 9.50 p.m., Sh. Vijay Karketta, Claimant/ Respondent no. 1 herein, aged 22 years was going on his cycle with one of the staff member who was sitting on the front rod of his cycle from his sub-office at Lajpat Nagar-II to his residence. When he reached near Mathura Road Kalka mode near Okhla Bus Depot- II, then a truck trailor No: DL-1GA-1906 driven rashly and negligently at a fast speed came from behind and hit him. Due to the impact, he fell down on the road along with his cycle and the offending truck came over him due to which he sustained serious injuries. After the accident, he was taken to the Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi. 3. A compensation of Rs.47,96,360/- has been claimed by the Respondent no. against the Respondent no. 2 herein, being the driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent no. 3 herein, being the owner of the offending vehicle & Appellant herein, as the offending vehicle is insured with them. 4. Respondent no. 2 opted not to appear despite service by way of publication and was proceeded ex- parte before the Trial Court. 5. Respondent no. 3 in his written statement has admitted that the offending truck was registered in his name. However, he has denied that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the Respondent no. 2. It is stated that accident was caused due to the act of the Respondent no.1 himself who has to be naturally well aware that bicycle is meant only for one person and pillion rider is not allowed. It is further stated that the cyclist was riding the bicycle on the main road carelessly in utter disregard of all safety rules. 6. Appellant though admitted that the offending truck was insured with it on the date of accident, it contested the claim on the ground that it was not be liable to pay any compensation in case it is found that the vehicle was being driven by a person without permission or authority of the insured or the said vehicle was used contrary to the terms of insurance policy or driver was not holding a proper and valid driving licence. 7. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.12,93,000/- (rounded off) along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. 25.02.02 till the date of its realization. 8. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards cost of future treatment of injuries, as till April 2006 (date of evidence) only a sum of Rs. 1,31,673/- was spent on treatment. Any future treatment after six years of occurrence of injury does not appear to be possible. Further, on 02.05.08, Sh. Surender Kumar Advocate, who had investigated regarding the present Magical Treatment of Respondent no.1 has informed the Insurance Company that the Respondent no.1 has not spen