High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 DEL CK 0434

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Omwati and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 21 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.P. Mittal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
MAC. App. 506 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 367 words

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. impugns judgment dated 14.04.2010 whereby a compensation of `33,90,726/- was awarded for the death of Head Constable Jagvir Singh who died in a motor accident which occurred on 30.07.2008. The only ground of challenge is that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased Jagvir Singh. Thus, the Appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.

2.

In para 23.1 of the Claim Petition, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 averred that on 30.07.2008, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR51W3590 for execution of the summons/warrants; he was proceeding on Mathura Road and driving his motorcycle paying regard to the traffic rules. At 10.00 pm, a truck bearing No.HR38N5405 being driven by the Respondent No.4 (first Respondent before the Claims Tribunal) came from the same direction. While driving at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, the said tanker struck against the motorcycle with great force. On account of the forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and suffered injuries which proved fatal.

3.

The driver of tanker contested the claim petition by way of filing a written statement and did not traverse the averments made in Para 23.1 (extracted above) either specifically or by necessary implication.

4.

During evidence Respondent Nos.1 to 3 produced Constable Sudhir Singh who testified about the manner of the accident. He deposed that after striking down the deceased, the truck driver did not stop. He fled away and was apprehended at a distance of 150 yards and was brought back to the spot.

5.

In this view of matter, the finding given by the Claims Tribunal that the accident was on account of contributory negligence of the driver of the truck bearing No. HR38N5405 cannot be said to be erroneous. The same is justified on the basis of the material available on record.

6.

No other point has been raised.

7.

The Appeal is devoid of any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.

8.

Compensation shall be released (held in Fixed Deposits) to the Respondents/Claimants in terms of the order passed by the Claim Tribunal. The pending applications also stand disposed of.