Delhi High Court - Orders
Babita & Ors vs Sh Krishan Pal & Ors on 9 February, 2023
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 182/2020, CM APPL. 21994/2020 (delay 146 days) &
CM APPL. 21995/2020 (delay 52 days(RF))
BABITA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Manish Maini, Mr.Vibhor Jain &
Ms.Yashika Miglani, Advs.
versus
SH KRISHAN PAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Nitin Kala, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 09.02.2023
1. The present appeal preferred by the claimant seeks to assail the award dated 02.05.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in MACT No.43/2018. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim preferred by the appellants i.e., the widow, children and the father of the deceased Sh.Balbir Singh who is stated to have suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place at Faridabad on 23.05.2017.
2. The primary ground on which the appellants' claim has been rejected is that the appellant no.1 had already received a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by way of a Panchayati settlement on 22.10.2017, which fact was not disclosed in her claim petition. The learned Tribunal has also observed that once MACT proceedings in respect of the same incident were also pending before the learned Tribunal at Faridabad, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:52:33 proceedings before the learned Tribunal at Delhi were not maintainable.
3. The primary contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that while dismissing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that merely because the appellant no.1, after losing the sole bread earner of the family, under compelling circumstances, accepted the meagre amount of Rs.5 lakh as compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, it could not be a ground to deprive her of the right to receive just and proper compensation. He submits that, in any event, the liability of the insurer would still remain. In support of his plea, he seeks to place reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Madhavan v. Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation, 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 378, the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Palo v. Rajesh Sahni, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 7374 and of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Kumudavalli, 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 66
4. He further submits that the proceedings before the learned Tribunal at Faridabad had not been initiated by the appellant but were initiated on the basis of the detailed accident report filed by the investigating agency at Faridabad. In any event, once the said proceedings already stand withdrawn by the appellant on 04.11.2020, the learned Tribunal at Delhi would have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. He, therefore, prays that the impugned award be set aside and the matter be remanded back for adjudication on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to make Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:52:33 submissions.
6. At request, list on 07.03.2023.
REKHA PALLI, J FEBRUARY 9, 2023 kk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:52:33