CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 09 DEL CK 0117

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Harpal Singh, Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Mohd. Qayum

Delhi High Court · Decided on 1 September 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vidya Bhushan Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
MAC App. No. 473 and C.M. No. 12148 of 2008
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 372 words

V.B. Gupta, J.—By way of the present appeal, filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short as ''Act''), the Appellant/New India Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2008 passed by Sh. Pradeep Chaddah, Judge, MACT, Delhi vide which the appellant was directed to pay interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - as envisaged u/s 140 of the Act, to the claimants.

2.

The main grievance of the appellant is that the deceased was a Gratuitous passenger in the vehicle which was meant for carrying goods and hence the Insurance Company is not liable. Furthermore, it is a question of evidence as to whether the deceased was travelling in the tempo in the capacity of owner of the goods or as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident and it could be proved only on the basis of evidence and as such finding given by the Tribunal that the deceased was travelling as a Gratuitous passenger, will prejudice the rights of the appellant, in defending the case on merits at the time of trial.

3.

For awarding interim relief u/s 140 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to see prima-facie, the factum of accident involving the vehicle and the factum of death of the person in a road accident.

4.

The case of the appellant/Insurance Company is that deceased was travelling as a Gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle whereas, the case of the claimants is that, the deceased was travelling in the capacity of the owner of the goods which were in the vehicle.

5.

So, it is a matter of evidence which has to be gone into by the trial court, as to whether the deceased was travelling as a Gratuitous passenger or in the capacity of owner of goods which were in the vehicle.

6.

Under these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the present appeal. However, this question whether the deceased was a Gratuitous passenger travelling in goods vehicle or he was travelling in the capacity of the owner of the goods which were in the vehicle, is left open to be decided by the Tribunal after recording evidence.

7.

With these observations, the present appeal stands disposed of.