MAC.APP. 520/2013 &

CM No. 47053/2018 (Cross objections)

Page 1 of 16

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 02.09.2022

Pronounced on: 13.09.2022

+

MAC.APP.

520/2013

&

CM

APPL.

47053/2018

(enhancement of compensation/Cross Objection), CM

APPL. 47054/2018 (condonation of delay)

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. A. K. Soni, Advocate

versus

SMT PUSHPA BISHT AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

CM. No. 47054/2018 (Condonation of delay in filing cross

objections)

1.

Present application has been filed for condoning the delay in

filing the cross objections.

2.

Since the matter has been heard finally and also for the reasons

stated in the application, the delay in filing the cross objections

is condoned.

3.

Application stands disposed of.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003840

MAC.APP. 520/2013 &

CM No. 47053/2018 (Cross objections)

Page 2 of 16

MAC. APP. 520/2013 & CM APPL. 47053/2018 (enhancement of

compensation/Cross Objection)

4.

Both, the appeal and the cross objection, are heard together and

disposed of by this common judgment as both arise out of the

common Award dated 18.4.2013 (“impugned Award”) passed

by the learned Tribunal which is impugned before this Court.

5.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the

impugned award dated 18.4.2013 passed by the Court of

learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Central District, Delhi and the Cross Objection under Order

XLI Rule 22 has been preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for

enhancement of the compensation amount.

6.

By way of the impugned Award dated 18.04.2013, the learned

Tribunal Awarded a compensation of Rs. 74,76,027/- with

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition i.e. 09.09.2010 till realization and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount

before the Tribunal.

Submission on behalf of the Appellant

7.

Mr.A.K.Soni learned counsel for the Appellant contended that

the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is based

on conjucture and surmises and is liable to be set aside on the

ground that it was not proved whether the vehicle bearing

registration no. HR-20R-7808 was driven in a rash and

negligent manner. He further submitted that there was no

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003840

MAC.APP. 520/2013 &

CM No. 47053/2018 (Cross objections)

Page 3 of 16

cogent and reliable evidence to hold that respondent

No.4/driver was guilty of causing the accident. He further

submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in placing reliance on

the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Shingara Singh, who is not an eye

witness to the alleged accident. He further contended that the

learned Tribunal ignored the statement of respondent no. 3

wherein he has categorically stated that the alleged accident

took place while saving a buffalo calf which came suddenly on

road.

8.

Learned counsel further with regard to modification of

quantum of compensation contended that learned Tribunal has

erred in considering the amount of compensation to be paid

under the head „Future Prospects‟ by adding 30% to the

assessed income of the deceased as there was no material

evidence to prove that the future income of the deceased would

increase to such extent, who was in the employment for only 21

days and not was not a permanent employee.

9.

Learned counsel while placing reliance on the dicta of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay

Sethi &Ors reported as 2017 AIR (SC) 5157, contended that

taking into account the age of the deceased, a deduction of 1/3

u