Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 9 of 2011
Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Respondent :- Kiranpal Singh & Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.C. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 13248 of 2013.
This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant with the prayer to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the present FAFO.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the office report dated 21.2.2018, the service upon the respondent no. 2 is deemed to be sufficient in view of provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 Explanation (II) of the High Court Rules.
The delay condonation application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant.
Having perused the averments made in the delay condonation application as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof, we are of the view that the cause shown for the delay in filing this appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Manoj
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 9 of 2011 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Respondent :- Kiranpal Singh & Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.C. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This first appeal from order has been preferred by the appellant- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 18.9.2010 passed by MA.C.T./Additional District Judge, Hapur Ghaziabad by which the M.A.C.P. No. 253 of 2001 filed by the claimant-respondent against the appellant- insurance company and the opposite party no. 1 claiming a sum of Rs. 27,40,000/- as compensation was allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 5,39,379/- was awarded by the tribunal as compensation to be paid by the appellant-insurance company to the claimant-respondent with a right to the appellant-insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owners of the vehicle, respondent no. 2.
The only ground on which the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award is that the claimant-respondent had failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the accident in which victim Jai Kumar had died involved the offending vehicle owned by the respondent no. 2 which was insured with the appellant-insurance company and hence the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.
Per Contra learned Standing counsel appearing for the claimant- respondent submitted although the finding recorded by the tribunal that the victim Jai Kumar had died as a result of the injuries received by him in an accident which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata 407 by it's driver which was insured with the appellant-insurance company does not suffer from any illegality, nevertheless even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the aforesaid finding recorded by the tribunal is erroneous, the tribunal having given the right to the appellant-insurance company to recover the amount of compensation paid by it to the claimant-respondent from the owners of the vehicle respondent no. 2, no case for interference with the impugned judgment and award is made out.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned judgment and award, we find that since the tribunal while fastening the liability to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimant-respondent on the appellant-insurance company has given it a right to recover the amount of compensation paid by it to the claimant- respondent from the owner of the vehicle respondent no. 2, who has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and award, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award.
The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Manoj