MAC.APP./987/2012 of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs BABY NAAZ & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 27[th] September, 2012

+ MAC. APP. 987/2012

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate versus

BABY NAAZ & ORS. .... Respondents

Through: Ms. Suman N.Rawat, Advocate for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1.The Appellant National Insurance Company impugns judgment dated 17[th] July, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `7,42,000/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered grievous injuries in motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 17[th] August, 2009.judgment dated 17[th] July, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `7,42,000/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered grievous injuries in motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 17[th] August, 2009.

2.I have before me the Trial court record. Admittedly, this petition was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). It was incumbent on the Claims Tribunal to have given finding on the issue of negligence. The Claimant was entitled to compensation only on proving negligence (Oriental petition was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). It was incumbent on the Claims Tribunal to have given finding on the issue of negligence. The Claimant was entitled to compensation only on proving negligence (Oriental

Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428).

3.Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 concedes that the issue of negligence ought to have been decided. Her only prayer is that Respondent No.1 should be given an opportunity to adduce the evidence to prove the negligence.negligence ought to have been decided. Her only prayer is that Respondent No.1 should be given an opportunity to adduce the evidence to prove the negligence.

4.In view of the above, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal with direction to give finding on negligence and then compute the compensation. sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal with direction to give finding on negligence and then compute the compensation.

5.The parties shall be permitted to lead evidence afresh. The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by its earlier finding on the quantum of compensation or liability. Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by its earlier finding on the quantum of compensation or liability.

6.The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 30[th] October, 2012. 30[th] October, 2012.

7.Trial court record be returned through special messenger. 8.Pending applications stand disposed of. 8.Pending applications stand disposed of.

9.The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Insurance Company.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE