LAWS(DLH)-1995-3-82

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANJIT KAUR

Decided On March 20, 1995
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI Appellant
V/S
MANJIT KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment will dispose of FAO No. 205 of 1981 filed by the New India Assurance Co Ltd as well as the Cross Objections (C.M.No. 1749/81) filed by the respondents-claimants.

(2.) The respondents-claimants filed their Claim Petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant Insurance Company as well as the driver and the owners for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for the death of Shri Hardev Singh caused in a motor accident alleged to have taken place on October 5, 1973 at about 6 A.M. at Ring Road, Near Britania Biscuit Factory. The respondents-claimants stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DLG 1598 on the part of the driver, Mata Din. The vehicle was owned by respondents 6 and 7 and was insured with Anand Insurance Company which subsequently merged with the appellant Insurance Company. The deceased and Smt. Rajinder Kaur were going from Moti Bagh to Punjabi Bagh in a car along with his father arid brother and when the car reached Punjabi Bagh near Britania Biscuit Factory, truck bearing No. DLG 1598 came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed, without headlights and dashed against the car after coming on the wrong side. The occupants of the car received injuries as a result of the impact of the accident. The said Shri Hardev Singh died on the spot.

(3.) The Claim Petition was contested by the appellant Insurance Company as well as by respondent no.6 and it proceeded ex parte against respondent no.7 Brahm Singh and the driver was dropped by the counsel for the respondents vide his statement made before the Tribunal. The allegations made in the petition were denied. The factum of accident was admitted and negligence was pleaded on the part of the deceased who was driving the car. The appellant Insurance Company denied the averments made in the petition and took the plea that the insurance particulars supplied by the respondents-claimants were incomplete and incorrect and, therefore, the claim was denied.