MAC No.66/2005 Page 1 of 21

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

MAC App. No.66/2005

%

Judgment reserved on: 23^rd September, 2008

Judgment delivered on:17^th October, 2008

1. Sh. Ram Pal S/o. Sh. Mangal,

2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o. Sh. Ram Pal,

3. Ms. Neetu D/o. Sh. Ram Pal,

All R/o. A-1142, Shahbad Diary Delhi.

(Petitioner No.2 & 3 being minor through

Their Father and Natural Guardian PetitioneNo.1)

….Appellants

Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.

Versus

1. Deleted.

2. Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o. Sh. Prithvi Rai,

R/o. WZ-312-B, Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi.

3. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place,

New Delhi.

4. Smt. Renu W/o. Sh. Dinesh Kumar,

R/o. Village Bihampur, Distt. Lucknow, U.P.

…Respondents

Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,

Adv. for R-3.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

MAC No.66/2005 Page 2 of 21

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes

V.B.Gupta, J.

The appellants, who are claimants in this case,

have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of

Motor

Vehicles

Act,

1988, for

enhancement

of

compensation as awarded by Ms. Sujata Kohli, Judge,

MACT (for short as „Tribunal‟) vide judgment dated

27^th April, 2004.

2. Brief facts of this case are that on 14^th August,

2001, at about 5.45 p.m., deceased Smt. Kanti was

standing at road side at Shiv Vihar Colony, at Main

Bawana Road, Delhi, intending to cross the road, when

a

Tempo bearing No. DL-IL-7664

being driven

allegedly at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent

manner came from Shahbad Village side and hit the

deceased, as a result thereof, the deceased fell down

MAC No.66/2005 Page 3 of 21

and sustained grievous injuries. Later on, deceased

succumbed to her injuries.

3. The Tempo was being driven by respondent

No.1/Manoj Kumar and it is owned by respondent

No.2/Sunil

Kumar

and

insured

with

respondent

No.3/National Insurance Company.

4. Vide order dated 8^th July, 2002, passed by the

Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the

offending vehicle was given up by the counsel for the

claimant and as such name of respondent No.1 was

deleted from the array of the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2/Sunil Kumar, the owner was

duly served but did not appear and as such he was

proceeded ex-parte.

6. Respondent

No.3/Insurance

Company

in

its

written statement has admitted the fact that the

vehicle in question was insured with it. However, it is

stated that the vehicle was being driven by a person

without permission or authority of the insured and it

MAC No.66/2005 Page 4 of 21

was being used contrary to the terms of the insurance

policy and was being driven by its driver without

holding a proper and valid driving licence. Therefore,

the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- along with

interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the

petition till 31^st December, 2001 and thereafter @ 9%

p.a. till the date of judgment.

8. It has been contended by the counsel for

appellant that the deceased was a labourer and was

earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Beside this, she was

looking after the entire household work. The

testimony of the husband of deceased remained

unrebutted

and

under

these

circumstances

the

Tribunal has not considered the income of the

deceased properly