Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
G.P.Mittal, J.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Asha Kalra - Resopndent
CM (M) 749/2012
Decided On : 30-07-2012
Nodal Officer - Motor Vehicle Accident - Central Motor Vehicles Rule - Section 279/337 IPC, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 3(2), Rule 4(2), Rule 6(3), Rule 6(6) - The court discussed the Agreed Procedure for motor vehicle accident claims, emphasizing the role of the Nodal Officer, the process of filing Detailed Accident Report (DAR), and the communication of reasoned decisions by the Insurance Company. The court highlighted that the Agreed Procedure did not mandate the personal presence of the Nodal Officer before the Claims Tribunal, and the insistence on such presence was deemed illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, an insurance company, challenged an order directing the personal presence of the Nodal Officer and issuing a Show Cause Notice for non-compliance with the Claims Tribunal's direction. The Claimant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident, and a settlement was reached.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Claims Tribunal acted illegally in insisting upon the personal presence of the Nodal Officer and issuing a show cause notice to him, despite the settlement of the case.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the Claims Tribunal's insistence on the personal presence of the Nodal Officer despite the settlement of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Agreed Procedure for motor vehicle accident claims did not mandate the personal presence of the Nodal Officer before the Claims Tribunal, and the insistence on such presence was deemed illegal.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Petition was allowed.
G.P. Mittal, J.
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited is aggrieved by an order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) directing personal presence of the Nodal Officer and issuing Show Cause Notice to him for not complying with the direction of the Claims Tribunal.
2. Asha Kalra (Smt.) suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.10.2011 resulting into registration of a criminal case being FIR No.162/2011 under Section 279/337 IPC, Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, New Delhi. The Investigating Officer (IO) filed Accident Information Report (AIR) No.28898 under Rule 150(1) and (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule. In addition to the AIR now a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is being filed by the IO in pursuance of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court and agreed to be followed by the Delhi Police and the Insurance Companies initially for a period of six months and now till further orders.
3. In pursuance of the DAR, an offer of Rs.2,50,000/- towards payment of compensation in full and final settlement was made by the Appellant Insurance Company which was accepted by the First Respondent on 05.03.2012 and the Claim Petition was disposed of as settled.
4. It is the order of the Claims Tribunal insisting personal presence of the Nodal Officer in each and every case which is the subject matter of the instant Petition. I would like to extract the orders dated 16.01.2012, 06.02.2012, 30.03.2012 and 04.05.2012 as under:-
“16.01.2012
Counsel for the driver and owner filed his vakalatnama. Fresh DAR filed. It be checked and registered. Copies supplied to the parties as per rules. Fresh claim petition is filed. Copy Supplied. It be attached to the DAR file. Put up for filing of written statement on 06.02.2012.”
“06.02.2012
Written statement filed by R-1 and R-2. Copy supplied. None has appeared on behalf of Insurance Company at the time of filing of DAR Petition also. Show cause notice be issued to Nodal Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as to why action be not taken against them for not appearing despite directions given by the court to appear in person on the date when the DAR was filed and to file reply to DAR Petition. Nominee of the Insurance Company is not present. IO to produce the nominee of the Insurance Company on 05.03.2012.”
“30.03.2012
First installment of Rs.45,000/- paid to the petitioner in presence of her counsel.
Counsel for Insurance Company filed an exemption application seeking exemption of Nodal Officer B.C. Sharma in reply to show cause notice. Matter be put up for appearance of Nodal Officer and report on payment of settlement amount 04.05.2012.”
“04.05.2012
Nodal Officer is present. Issue show cause notice to him why he is not complying the direction of the Hon’ble High Court and not appearing at the filing of any DAR. Reply be filed by the Nodal Officer.
Put up on 06.07.2012.”
5. A perusal of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal would reveal that the Claims Tribunal was perturbed that the Nodal Officer was not appearing in person when the DAR is filed and to file reply to the DAR Petition. It is noteworthy that the Claim Petition was settled on 05.03.2012 and the compensation agreed to be paid by the Appellant Insurance Company, yet the Claims Tribunal wanted to take action against the Nodal Officer as he failed to appear personally.
6. I have heard Mr. Pradeep Gaur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. Joy Basu, Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the issue whether The Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure was violated by the Appellant and whether the Nodal Officer or for that matter the Insurance Company had given any cause to the Claims Tribunal to pass the order dated 06.02.2012 and 04.05.2012.
7. With the help of learned Amicus Curiae, I have gone through the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure which was agreed to be followed initially
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
