LAWS(DLH)-2024-3-322

RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. Vs. JAGDISH

Decided On March 12, 2024
Reliance General Ins. Co. Appellant
V/S
JAGDISH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/insurance company has preferred the present appeal under Sec. appeal under Sec. 173[173. Appeals. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court, unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent. of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than [one lakh] rupees.] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[MV Act] assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dtd. 9/11/2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (West-01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi[ Tribunal ] in Case No. 110/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has imposed the entire liability to pay the compensation to the parents of the deceased Virender Kumar @ Veeran, upon the shoulders of the appellant/insurance company.

(2.) At the outset, the only plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that in terms of testimony of PW-2 Vikram and PW-3 Naresh, who were examined on behalf of the claimants/parents of deceased Virender Kumar @ Veeran. It is clearly brought out that the deceased was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL4SBY-3868 (TVS Model) with three of his friends on the pillion seat when the vehicle struck with the offending truck/ Tanker bearing registration No. DL1GB-65664, resulting in fatal injuries to the driver of the motorcycle and bodily injuries to the other occupants.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/ claimants, first things first, there is no challenge to the findings given by the learned Tribunal holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 herein, i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured for third party risk, and there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants either.