SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Del) 1724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNIL GAUR, J.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rekha Devi @ Shakshi and Others – Respondents
MAC. APP. No. 178 of 2013
Decided On : 16-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Neerja Sachdeva.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for drivers of vehicles carrying hazardous goods to possess the necessary driving license and training, as well as the adjustment of compensation under non-pecuniary heads in accordance with legal precedents.

Headnote:

Compensation - Vehicular Accident - Motor Vehicle Act 1988, Section 172, Rule 132 - The court reassessed the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, highlighting the requirement for drivers of vehicles carrying hazardous goods to possess the necessary driving license and training as per Rule 132 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 to adjust the compensation under non-pecuniary heads. The compensation payable to the respondents-claimants was reassessed based on these legal provisions.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a vehicular accident resulting in the death of an individual. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the respondents-claimants, which was challenged by the appellant-Insurer on various grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess the required endorsement on the driving license to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods, leading to the ineffectiveness of the insurance policy. The court also adjusted the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads in line with the Supreme Court's decision.

Issues: The issues included the endorsement on the driving license, recovery rights of the Insurer, and the adjustment of compensation under non-pecuniary heads.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the requirement for drivers of vehicles carrying hazardous goods to possess the necessary driving license and training, as well as the Supreme Court's decision on the adjustment of compensation under non-pecuniary heads.

Final Decision: The court reassessed the compensation payable to the respondents-claimants, reducing the awarded amount and converting the counsel's fee and out of pocket expenses into costs. The excess deposit was to be refunded to the appellant-Insurer.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Impugned Award of 3rd May, 2012 grants compensation of Rs. 9,74,260/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondents-claimants on account of death of one Vijay Pal aged 35 years in a vehicular accident on 22nd October, 2008.

2. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“It is the case of the LRs of the deceased Sh. Vijay Pal that on 22.10.2008 the deceased alongwith Sh. Neetu s/o Sh. Raghuraj Singh was coming back to Delhi from Gandhidham, Gujarat, in vehicle No. HR-69A-1061 (truck), loaded by salt, via High Way Road, Radhanpur, Distt. Patan, Gujarat. The truck was being driven by Sh. Neetu carefully and vigilantly and at about 6.00 am when his vehicle i.e. truck bearing no. HR-69A-1061 reached near Ramdev Chaudhary Hotel, Highway Road, Radhanpur, Distt. Patan, Gujarat, then all of sudden the offending vehicle no. GJ-12Z-0921 (tanker) being driven by its driver respondent no. 1 with a high speed, rashly, negligently, violating the traffic rules, zig-zag manner and without indication applied the brakes, it was ahead of the deceased. Due to this impact, the front portion of vehicle No. HR-69A-1061 (truck) hit into the back of offending vehicle No. GJ-12Z-0921 (tanker) and the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to C.H.C. Radhanpur (Civil Hospital), Distt. Patan, Gujarat in precarious condition, by the police, where he was declared brought dead due to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. A criminal case under section 279/337/304-A IPC was registered against respondent no. 1 vide FIR No. 175/08 in police station Radhanpur, Distt. Patan, Gujarat. It is further stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1 of offending vehicle bearing no. GJ-12Z-0921 (tanker).”

3. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has been rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as “the Tribunal”) and the breakup of compensation awarded is as under:-

(1)

Loss of dependency

Rs. 7,39,260/-

(2)

Funeral charges

Rs. 10,000/-

(3)

Loss of estate

Rs. 75,000/-

(4)

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 50,000/-

(5)

Loss of love and affection etc.

Rs. 1,00,000/-

 

Total

Rs. 9,74,260/-

4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer is on the ground that there is no endorsement on the driving licence in question that the driver is permitted to drive vehicle carrying dangerous/hazardous goods and so, recovery rights ought to be granted to the Insurer. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer further submits that compensation granted under the “non-pecuniary heads” ought to be suitably reduced in light of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the lawyer’s fee and out of pocket expenses, as there is no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to award the costs. So, it is submitted that the impugned Award ought to be accordingly modified.

5. On the contrary, supports the impugned Award and submits that the compensation awarded is just and fair. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that the Verification Report (Ex. R3W1/5) issued by the concerned Licencing Authority in respect of the driving licence in question does not carry any endorsement regarding authorization to drive vehicle carrying hazardous goods like oil, etc. It is relevant to note that appellant had insured the vehicle in question i.e. oil tanker and the Insurance Policy stipulates that in the event of violation of any provision of the Motor Vehicl








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top