*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 04^th July, 2022

+

MAC.APP. 249/2020 & CM APPL. 39784/2021

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant

versus

VANDNA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. Sunder Prakash Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Deval, Advocate for R-1 to R-6.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1.

Appellant impugns judgment dated 29.02.2020 whereby the

claim petition filed by the wife, daughter, two sons, and mother and

father of the deceased has been allowed and compensation awarded.

2.

Subject accident took place on the night of 04.04.2018 when as

per the claimants the deceased was going from Khandsa Road Sabji

Mandi via the service road of Rajiv Chowk in a goods carrier three-

wheeler.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002501

3.

At about 9.00 p.m. when he reached near Om Nagar Mor,

Shanti Nagar, Gurugram, the offending vehicle, a Maruti WagonR

being driven in a rash and negligent manner approached from the

opposite direction/wrong side and hit the vehicle of the deceased from

the front side with a great force. Due to the forceful impact, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries. He succumbed to his injuries on

11.04.2018.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends

that this is not a case of an accident but a murder which has been

given the colour of an accident. He submits that the brother of the

deceased had himself made a complaint to the police that it is not a

case of an accident but his brother has been murdered. Reliance is

also placed on the MLC history wherein it is recorded that the

deceased has been assaulted.

5.

Learned counsel submits that since it is not a case of an

accident but a case of murder, the insurance company is not liable to

pay any amount as compensation.

6.

This is disputed by the Claimants. It is contended that there is

no material to show that the deceased has been murdered. Learned

Counsel for the claimants relies upon the testimony of the police

officer as well as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem to

contend that even the police had registered a case of death by road

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002501

accident and that the examining doctor has opined that the injuries

sustained are on account of an accident.

7.

Trial Court has held that there is overwhelming evidence to

establish that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle.

8.

In support of the claim, the claimant had examined the wife of

the deceased as PW-1 and one Harish Kumar as PW-2 who is an

eyewitness to the accident. He has deposed that on 04.04.2018 at

about 9 pm, a WagonR car and blue colour Tempo collided with each

other on the service road of Om Nagar, Gurugram. He had deposed

that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the

driver of the WagonR car.

9.

In the cross-examination Harish Kumar has stated that he runs a

sweet shop at the spot of the accident and he was present in his shop

and had witnessed the accident. He had deposed that the injured had

suffered head injury and blood was oozing out of his head after the

accident.

10.

Claimants also examined Dr. Vinay Kumar, Specialist Forensic

Medicine, BJRM Hospital, Delhi as PW-3. Said witness had

conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He has deposed that as

per his opinion the cause of death was ‘Cranio cerebral damage

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002501

consequent upon blunt force impact’. He stated that all injuries were

ante mortem in nature. In his cross-examination he has stated that the

injuries mentioned in his report were suggestive of the history of

accident. He had stated that as per his Post Mortem rep