Dismissed

Sudesh Kumari v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/951/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation repudiated by insurer who claimed deceased was under liquor influence. Court held disputed facts required cross-examination of the doctor and dismissed petition with liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and application dismissed with liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

Sudesh Kumari Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Insurance | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 951/2016

¶4

SUDESH KUMARI ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar with Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advs. for R-3

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶10

O R D E R % 12.02.2016 CM Appl.4102/2016

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 951/2016 & CM Appl.4101/2016

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to give compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the insurance policy along with interest @ 18% per annum from 3^rd August, 2007 till the date of realisation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the claim of the petitioner-wife was repudiated by respondent no. 3-NICL only on the ground that as per MLC, the deceased-husband was under the influence of liquor.

¶15

According to learned counsel for petitioner, since Viscera was not preserved by the Doctor and blood sample of the deceased was

¶16

not taken and his breath test was not checked at the relevant time, it cannot be said that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol.

¶17

She further states that the finding given by the Doctor in its MLC was not based on any document and, therefore, said observation cannot be a ground for rejection of petitioner’s claim.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner further states that the present petition has been filed in view of the liberty granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal while dismissing OA No.1806/2014 vide order dated 28^th April, 2015 .

¶19

However, in the opinion of this Court, there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present writ petition and the Doctor who gave the medical opinion would have to be cross-examined.

¶20

Consequently, the present writ petition and application are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

¶21

MANMOHAN, J

¶22

FEBRUARY 12, 2016 NG

Sudesh Kumari v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumari v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.K. Anand & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Vs M/S Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Krishan & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Bijwasan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) & Ors.

Moti Kumari Vs Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

Abhishek Prakash Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi, India & Anr.

Mustajab Ali Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

M/S Krishan & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Harbir Singh Vs State (Nct) of Delhi & Ors.

J K Srivastava Vs Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Mitali Bhattacharya Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Kamlajit Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Gaurav Bisht Vs Smt. Swarn Lata Sethi D.A.V. Public School and Anr.