Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Sh Virender & Ors

O R D E R %

20.11.2024

¶1An Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company/Appellant challenging the impugned Award dated 19.02.2021 on the sole ground that the Claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, which was a goods vehicle bearing No. DL-1LS-4009.

¶2It is asserted that he being a gratuitous passenger, was not covered by the Insurance Policy and no liability could have been imposed on the Insurance Company for payment of compensation.

¶3Submissions Heard.

¶4It would be pertinent to refer to the observations made by the learned Tribunal wherein a reference has been made to the cross-examination of PW-1, Mr., Virender, the Claimant, who deposed in his cross-examination that he had been working at Santa Fe Moving Services Pvt. Ltd. since 2013 as an Office boy and has been getting a salary from the said Company. He further admitted that Mr. Pankaj Singh (owner of the offending vehicle) was This is a digitally signed order. not his employer. He further clarified that he had gone to visit some client and he was sitting in the vehicle No. DL 01 LS 4009 (Eicher Truck) on his way back.

¶5Reference has also been made to the DAR wherein it has been mentioned that the offending vehicle was attached with Sante Fe Moving Services Pvt. Ltd. and that the Manager of the said Company along with the owner had gone to the Police Station in response to the Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act and had got the vehicle released on superdari. It was therefore, concluded that, from the evidence, it was proved that the victim, Mr. Virender, was travelling with Mr. Umesh Chaudhary, not as a gratuitous passenger.

¶6As per the Insurance Policy, driver and two persons are allowed to travel in the offending vehicle and both the injured were the employee of Sante Fe Moving Services Pvt. Ltd., with which the offending vehicle was attached.

¶7The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly concluded that the injured persons were not the gratuitous passengers and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation.

¶8There is no infirmity in the observations of the learned Tribunal. The Appeal is, therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶9The statutory amount be released to the Insurance Company.

¶10The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J NOVEMBER 20, 2024/RS This is a digitally signed order.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 197/2021, CM APPL. 17543/2021 (stay) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. A K Soni, Advocate. versus SH VIRENDER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Avinash Sharma with Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Advocates for Respondent No. 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA