LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-303

SAMLA DEVI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

Decided On January 24, 2008
SAMLA DEVI Appellant
V/S
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the award dated 8/9/2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,16,400 along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants from 21/3/2001 till realization.

(2.) The brief conspectus of facts are as follows:

(3.) The challenge in the present appeal has been made on the sole ground that the tribunal vide impugned order dated 8/9/2004 has awarded interest from 21/3/2001 instead from the date of filing of the petition, viz., 16/4/1992, without taking into consideration the exact facts and record into consideration. Sh. Mohit Gupta, counsel for the appellant urged that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellants had paid process fee to serve the respondents for almost all the dates of hearing. The counsel maintained that there was no fault on the part of the appellant and therefore, the appellants cannot be victimized. The counsel further submitted that in spite of the service of the summons; the insurance company filed the written statement on 7/10/1994, with a deliberate delay of about one and a half year. The counsel also averred that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the service of respondent no. 1 was completed by publication. The counsel contended that once requisite steps were taken by the appellant to serve the respondents then the appellants cannot be made to suffer for the non-service of the same. The counsel also urged that the tribunal failed to appreciate that the tribunal had already imposed a cost of Rs. 500/- on the appellant due to default on her part in serving the respondents. The counsel also submitted that the appellant cannot be made to suffer for the dates when on seven occasions either the Presiding Officer was on leave or due to the strike of the Advocates, Court work could not be carried out or for the dates when both appellant and respondents were not appearing before the Court due to confusion and uncertainty in the appointment of a Presiding Officer.