MAC APP.996/2011

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

MAC.APP. 996/2011

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

Through

Mr. K.K. Bhat, Advocate

versus

NEELAM SHARMA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1.

The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited

impugns the award dated 11.08.2011 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby

compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- was awarded in favour of

Respondent no.1 for the death of her bachelor son Tarun

Sharma.

2.

During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal in a petition under

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), it was

2015:DHC:3822

MAC APP.996/2011

Page 2 of 9

stated by Respondent no.1 that deceased Tarun Sharma was in

private service with Respondent no.2 Naresh Grover, owner of

the two wheeler bearing registration no.DL-4S-AE-8473

involved in the accident. It was pleaded that on 25.02.2008 at

about 11:45 p.m., deceased Tarun Sharma was riding the two

wheeler bearing registration no. DL-4S-AE-8473 from the place

of his work to his residence. When the motorcycle reached at

NSIT Chowk, Dwarka, an unknown vehicle came from the

crossing.

3.

Deceased Tarun lost control over his motorcycle and hit the

divider. He suffered injuries which proved fatal. The identity of

the other vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident was not

known.

4.

In the written statement filed by Naresh Grover, Respondent

no.2 herein, the averments made in Para 23 of the petition were

not denied specifically or by necessary implication. Respondent

no.2 at the same time admitted that deceased Tarun Sharma was

employed with him (Respondent no.2) as a Field Assistant and

was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Respondent no.2 also stated

2015:DHC:3822

MAC APP.996/2011

Page 3 of 9

that as a Field Assistant, deceased Tarun Sharma used to take

the vehicle belonging to Respondent no.2 in the field and

sometimes he would also take the vehicle with him at his home.

On the day of the accident, the deceased was taking the vehicle

with him at his home.

5.

In the written statement filed by Appellant Insurance Company,

it was stated that deceased Tarun Sharma died due to his own

negligence. He was not a third party and hence, the Appellant

Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

6.

On appreciation of evidence and law, the Claims Tribunal found

that negligence is not required to be proved by the legal heirs of

the deceased victim to claim compensation under Section 163-A

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). The Claims

Tribunal further held that in case of liability to pay

compensation

to

an

employee

under

the

Employees

Compensation Act, 1923, also negligence is not required to be

proved. While referring to Section 147 of the Act, the Claims

Tribunal opined that the liability in respect of the employee is

required to be covered under the insurance policy and yet it

2015:DHC:3822

MAC APP.996/2011

Page 4 of 9

proceeded to award the compensation payable by the Appellant.

7.

At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the insurance

policy in the instant case. Although the insurance policy was

not specifically proved, a copy thereof seems to be placed on

record by the Respondent claimant which has not been disputed

by the Appellant Insurance Company. The policy is in respect

of a two wheeler under which premium towards own damage

(OD) and Third Party (TP) of 394, stamp duty of Re.1/- and

service tax of Rs.49/- was charged. The question whether the

insurer would be liable to pay the compensation in respect of an

employee who is himself driving a vehicle was gone into by the

Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance