Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited vs Sushila Devi & Ors.

R.K.Gauba, J

By judgment dated 05.06.2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) decided accident claim case (suit no.328/2010) which was instituted

by first to fourth respondents (collectively, the claimants) on 16.11.2010, seeking compensation on account of death of Vidya Prasad, in a motor

vehicular accident that had occurred on 18.09.2010, due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as Maruti Van bearing registration no.DL-

3C-AD-3358 (Van). The tribunal returned a finding on the basis of evidence led during inquiry that the accident had indeed been caused due to

negligent driving of the van by the fifth respondent (Hansraj) who is also the registered owner of the said vehicle. During the inquiry, reliance had

been placed on the certificate-cum-policy of insurance admittedly issued by the appellant (insurer) in respect of the vehicle covering third party risk for

the relevant period. The insurer, however, took the plea that the said insurance policy had been obtained by the fifth respondent by committing fraud

and mis-representation of facts with regard to the insurance policy for the previous year. This plea was rejected by the tribunal and the liability to pay

the compensation determined by the impugned judgment placed at the door of the insurer.

The appeal was filed by the insurer questioning the above decision of the tribunal.

The appeal was put in the list of ‘Regulars’, to come up on its own term as per order dated 11.02.2016. When it is called out for hearing, on

its turn, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant.

The learned counsel for the fifth respondent has been heard and record perused.

The very fact that the insurance company had issued the certificate-cum-policy of insurance for the period in question and there were no steps

taken for cancellation of such policy justifies the view taken by the tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, found to be devoid of substance and is dismissed.

By order dated 24.08.2012, the insurer had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the UCO Bank, Delhi

High Court branch. By a subsequent order dated 12.10.2012, fifty percent (50%) of the awarded amount was permitted to be released to the

claimants. The Registry shall now release the balance with accrued interest to the claimants in terms of the impugned judgment.

Since the insurer did not appear at the final hearing to assist, statutory deposit is forfeited as costs to be made over to Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee.

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.