In a recent legal development, the Delhi High Court has issued a judgment in the appeal against the compensation awarded to Sh. Hawa Singh. The case involved a dispute over the interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. Find out more about the court’s decision in this important case.
Facts
- The appellant filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment-cum-award dated 23.11.2015.
- The appeal is against the award of Rs.7,64,654/- as compensation to Sh. Hawa Singh in a claim petition.
- The appeal disputes the interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
- The appeal is specifically against the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, (North), Rohini, Delhi in claim petition suit No.43/12.
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the claimant was negligent since he was found to smell of alcohol in his breath when examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
- The accident involving the motorcycle of Anil Kumar and the Santro car was not disputed.
- The claimant sustained injuries on 07.11.2011 when his motorcycle was hit by Anil Kumar’s Santro car.
- Anil Kumar was the driver and owner of the Santro car involved in the accident.
Analysis
- Petitioner denied consuming liquor before accident based on testimony of PW-1.
- It was not proven that the accident was caused by the petitioner’s negligence or intoxication.
- No blood sample was taken from the injured claimant to test for alcohol presence.
- The insurance company’s plea was deemed unsustainable by the tribunal.
- The accident was not attributed to the petitioner’s fault as there was no evidence of intoxication affecting judgment.
- The MLC recorded the smell of alcohol on the petitioner but did not conclude intoxication or impairment.
- The attending doctors found the claimant conscious and well-oriented after the accident.
- No challenge was made during cross-examination on the driver of the offending vehicle being responsible for the accident.
- The mere smell of alcohol on the breath does not conclusively prove contributory negligence
- Other factors must be considered in determining guilt of contributory negligence
Decision
- The balance amount of compensation is to be released to the claimant immediately with interest.
- The claim petition was decided within three years of filing.
- The insurance company was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest to the Tribunal within four weeks.
- The appeal has been disposed of as it failed on merits.
- The statutory amount of Rs.25,000 deposited by the insurance company will be forfeited to the State.
- The only modification required is in the award of compensation towards the interest rate.
Case Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HAWA SINGH & ANR (2024:DHC:3697)
Case Number: MAC.APP.-107/2016
