Allowed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Kumar & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Mar 2016CM(M)/458/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's interim order directing the insurer to pay treatment costs absent statutory authority. The appeal against the interim order was allowed, the order quashed, and the Tribunal directed to conclude the inquiry within six months.

What did the court decide?

Interim order of MACT directing payment of `1,74,300 is set aside; MACT directed to conclude inquiry within six months; insurer's voluntary payment of `25,000 to be adjusted.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar & Ors. — Insurance | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 16^th March, 2016

¶4

- CM(M) 458/2014 & CM APPL. 7936/2014

¶5

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advs.

¶8

versus

¶9

SHIV KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents

¶10

Through: Mr. S. P. Gairola, Adv. for R-1.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT

¶12

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

¶13

The first respondent filed an accident claim case before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) which registered it as suit no.536/2009 for inquiry into the claim for compensation for injuries suffered. On his application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the tribunal by order dated 23.04.2014 directed the appellant/insurance company (the insurer) to pay an amount of `1,74,300/- for his treatment in Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Delhi on the reasoning that estimate for such treatment had been made available, the medical institute in question was reliable and having good facility and there was no reason why the first respondent (the claimant) should continue to suffer because of his poverty.

¶14

CM (M) No. 458/2014 Page 1 of 3

¶15

This order was passed inspite of objection of the insurance company that there is no provision for such interim relief to be granted in as much as the only relief that can be made available is in the event of permanent disability in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act).

¶16

The insurance company having come up in appeal prayed for stay against the execution of the interim order. When the application came up for consideration on 06.05.2014, it was submitted that the claimant himself is responsible for delay in expeditious disposal of the claim petition. The insurance company at the same time, submitted its readiness to pay to the injured an amount of 25,000/-. Subject to payment of 25,000/-to the claimant by the insurer, the enforcement of the impugned order was stayed.

¶17

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the claimant fairly conceded that the petition filed before the tribunal in the year 2009 is still at the stage of inquiry wherein the evidence is to be adduced by him. It is clear from these submissions that for the delay in the conclusion of the inquiry, the blame will have to be taken by the claimant himself. It is really unfortunate if this is the state of affairs in the face of the fact that by order dated 01.10.2014, the tribunal had been requested to make an attempt to expeditiously dispose of the claim petition.

¶18

The learned counsel for the claimant now fairly concedes that interim relief granted by the tribunal is not covered by any specific provision. He further fairly conceded that the order may be set aside but prayed that a request be made to the tribunal to decide the claim case/petition

¶19

CM (M) No. 458/2014 Page 2 of 3

¶20

expeditiously. He assures that the claimant would render all cooperation towards its end.

¶21

In above view, the petition is allowed. The interim relief granted by the tribunal by the impugned order is set aside. The tribunal shall proceed with the claim case expeditiously and make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings and render final judgment/award at an early date, preferably within six months of today. The amount of `25,000/- paid voluntarily by the insurer to the claimant shall be liable to be adjusted against the final award.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶23

R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 16, 2016
ssc

¶24

CM (M) No. 458/2014 Page 3 of 3

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Kumar & 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

Dinesh Kumar Mehra &Ors Vs Chairman Dct, Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gill India Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tapati Sarkar

National Building Construction Coporation Ltd. Vs P N Yadav

Mukesh Kumar Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Prem Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Delhi Jal Board and Anr.

Uco Bank Vs Tek Chand Narula & Ors.

Suresh Chand Jain Vs Nirmala Rani Vohra

M/S Zoom Communications Ltd. Vs M/S Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd.

Javid @ Jabed Vs Nitin Mathur & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Raj Kumar & Ors. (Oriental Insurance Company)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Master Pratyaksh & Ors.

Vinay Kumar Vs Suman Arora and Ors.

Mini Sabu Vs Mohit Saini & Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suman Arora & Ors.