Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sangita Singh & Ors.

R.K.Gauba, J

There were two victims in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 11.03.2015 involving a motor vehicle described as dumper bearing

registration no. HR 38S 1647 (the dumper) which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company, the accident

having become the subject matter of investigation by police through first information report (FIR) No. 292/2015 of police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi.

One of the victims, Syed Ahsan Raza, was injured while the other victim, Jay Vardhan Narayan Singh, died as a result of injuries suffered. The police

investigated into the FIR and submitted detailed accident report (DAR) before the motor accident claims tribunal which registered it as a claim petition

(suit no. 193/2015), pursuant to the directions in Smt. Rajesh Tyagi vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO 842/2003. The insurance company, when called upon

to respond, submitted legal offer. But, it appears that the legal offer in the context of fatality was not acceptable to the next of kin, first and second

respondents (Collectively, the claimants). The tribunal, by judgment dated 02.12.2015, passed award in both the cases on the basis of submissions

made against the above backdrop, the compensation in the injury case being Rs. 12,000/- and in the case of death, it being Rs. 79,63,120/-.

The appeal at hand questions the procedure applied by the tribunal in the death case, it being clarified that there was no need for any such questions

to be raised in the injury case, the amount of compensation being paltry.

Having gone through the record, this court finds merit in the objections raised by the appellant. If the legal offer was not acceptable to the

claimants, the case had to be converted into a regular claim case and subjected to the normal procedure of inquiry wherein not only pleadings would

be called for but also opportunity given to both sides to lead evidence. No such inquiry having been made, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

It is therefore, set aside. It may be added that the same tribunal has been following similar procedure in several other cases, such approach having

been disapproved by this Court in previous rulings. For illustration one may refer to the judgment dated 22.08.2017 Saroj Gupta & Anr. vs. Hariom

Chaudhary & Ors in MACA No. 148/2017. It is hoped that such errors will not be committed in future.

In order to ensure, however, that the claimants are not deprived of just compensation to which they may be entitled in law, the matter is remitted to

the tribunal for proper inquiry and adjudication. For such purposes, the parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 16th November, 2017. All

contentions of both sides are reserved.

In terms of order dated 08.02.2016, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the amounts stated in the legal offer with the tribunal within

30 days thereof and such amount was allowed to be released to the claimant in the ratio of 70: 30 in favour of the first and second respondents, the

same put in fixed deposit interest bearing account in their respective names with right to draw monthly interest. Such arrangement of payment only of

interest will continue during the pendency before the tribunal. It is made clear that the principal amount shall not be released till the case is decided

afresh. Suitable direction shall be given by the tribunal in its decision in such regard. The amount already received would be adjustable against the final

order that may be passed by the tribunal.

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.