NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant at the time of hearing of the appeals is that since the offer given by the Appellant Insurance Company was not accepted by the Respondents(claimants), the Claims Tribunal instead of going into the question of negligence, directly proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the Appellant has urged that once the offer given by the Appellant was not accepted, it was obligatory on the part of the Claims Tribunal to have first proceeded to decide the question of negligence.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents (claimants) submits that since in three other matters arising out of this very accident, the offer given by the Appellant Insurance Company was accepted by the Respondents, this would amount to admission of the liability by the Appellant and hence, while hearing the two remaining claim petitions out of which these two appeals have risen, the Claims Tribunal was not under any obligation to go through the question of negligence.

(3.) I am not inclined to agree with the submissions raised on behalf of the Respondents. The settlement on the basis of Detailed Accident Report(DAR) procedure will not be binding upon the insurer on the question of negligence. I had the occasion to examine in detail the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. v. Asha Kalra, CM(M).749/2012 decided on 30.07.2012 and I held that in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it will be obligatory for the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle to claim compensation. Paras 8 to 13 of the report in Asha Kalra are extracted hereunder: