UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 606/2002
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
SABIRAN & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
% Date of Decision : September 22, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The sole contention of Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal is that in view of the fact that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 5th September, 2002 arrived at the finding that the respondent No.1 was not having a driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle, the appellant - Insurance Company should have been exonerated of FAO No.606/2002 Page 1 of 3 its liability to pay compensation to the respondents No.1 to 7/claimants. Instead the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the award amount within a period 30 days from the date of the passing of the award with liberty to recover the said amount from the respondent No.9 - insured.
2. The aforesaid issue arising in the present appeal, which was filed on 28.10.2002, is now covered by a decision of a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh and Others (2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein it has been held that even in cases where the driver of the offending vehicle is not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company must pay to the claimants the award amount and can recover the same from the insured. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:-
"100. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time.FAO No.606/2002 Page 2 of 3
101. Apart from the reasons stated hereinbefore the doctrine of stare decisis persuades us not to deviate from the said principle.
102. It is well-settled rule of law and should not ordinarily be deviated from. (See Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar and Ors., (1955) 2SCR 603 Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay North (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC), Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. ((1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC), Gannon Dunkerley and Co.and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 364, Belgaum Gardeners Cooperative Production Supply and Sale Society Ltd. v. State of Karanataka 1992 (1) SCALE 105 4a, Hanumantappa Krishnappa Mantur and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 1992 Cri LJ 405."
3. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the present appeal is not maintainable. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. Records of the Claims Tribunal be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) September 22, 2011 ak FAO No.606/2002 Page 3 of 3