Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Mukesh vs Sh. Ajay Sehgal on 6 July, 2015

                                                                  Suit No. 54/2014

       IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN : PRESIDING OFFICER : 
            MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­02:(WEST): DELHI


SUIT NO. : 54/2014
DAR in respect of
FIR No. 498/2013
Police Station Rajouri Garden


Sh. Mukesh 
S/o Sh. Jagadish
R/o H. No. 157, Dadiya, 
PS Jogiya, Tehsil Bansi, 
district Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
                                              ..............Petitioner
                                     Versus


   1. Sh. Ajay Sehgal
      S/o Sh. Gurbax Singh
      R/o J­11/96, Rajouri Garden,
      Delhi.  (Driver)


   2. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.
      Plot No. 94, Sector­32,
      New Delhi.  (Owner)


   3. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
      7  Flor, Parkashdeep Building,
       th


      Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.
      (Insurance Company)


                                                      ..........Respondents
Mukesh Vs. Ajay Sehgal & Ors.                                                  1/4
                                                                                        Suit No. 54/2014

Date of Institution                         :                     20.01.2014 (DAR)
Date of Award                               :                     06.07.2015
AWARD

1. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed in FIR No. 498/2013 under Section 279/337 IPC, Police Station Rajouri Garden, which was registered as claim petition with respect to injured Sh. Mukesh Kumar.

2. As per the facts stated in the DAR, Sh. Mukesh received injuries on 26.08.2013 at about 08:30 PM at main road, J­11 Block, crossing of Rajouri Garden, Delhi, in a vehicular accident involving Car bearing registration No. HR 26 BR 3258, driven by respondent no. 1 Sh. Ajay Sehgal, owned by respondent no. 2 M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited and insured with respondent no. 3/Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. In the written statement, respondent/insurance company made an offer to pay Rs. 30,000/­ as compensation to the injured/petitioner, which was not accepted by the petitioner/injured and therefore the matter was proceeded on merits by Ld. Predecessor.

4. No formal written statement was filed by respondent no. 1 and 2.

5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 26.05.2014 :

1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Mukesh Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 26.08.2013 at about 08:30 PM (Night) involving Car bearing No. HR 26 BR 3258 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3/Insurance Company? OPP Mukesh Vs. Ajay Sehgal & Ors. 2/4 Suit No. 54/2014
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.

6. At the stage of petitioner evidence, on the request of injured and counsel for insurance company, matter was referred to Mediation Centre as parties desired to settle the matter.

7. Terms of settlement were received along with Mediation proceedings dated 01.07.2015. Parties submitted that they have settled the matter without any inducement, force and coercion at the Mediation Centre.

8. Statement of petitioner and counsel for the insurance company were recorded separately. Petitioner has been duly identified by IO HC Satish Kumar.

9. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

10. I am satisfied that parties have settled the matter without any inducement, force or coercion. In view of the statements of parties, I pass an award in the sum of Rs. 40,000/­ (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) in terms of the settlement in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 3, who has indemnified respondents No. 1 and 2.

11. Liability of respondent No. 3, being the insurer is joint and several with other respondents. Therefore, the respondent No. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount by way of cheque within a period of 30 days from the date of settlement. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.

Mukesh Vs. Ajay Sehgal & Ors. 3/4 Suit No. 54/2014

12. The copy of this award be given to the petitioner and the insurance company free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send copy of the Award to concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.

13. Nazir is directed to maintain the record as per the directions given in FORM­V in compliance of the judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.

14. File be consigned to Record Room.

15. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 20.07.2015.


Announced in the open court                                (Santosh Snehi Mann)
                                                        JUDGE: MACT­02 (WEST):DELHI
       th
On 06  July, 2015




Mukesh Vs. Ajay Sehgal & Ors.                                                                            4/4