The High Court of Delhi was dealing with the Petition against award dated 31.07.2020 to the limited extent that right of recovery has been granted to the insurance company against the appellant/owner.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in granting the recovery rights on the ground that there was no valid permit to ply the vehicle in Delhi whereas the vehicle was registered in Haryana. The Learned counsel points out that appellant had duly proved the authorisation certificate and the permit clearly records that the authorisation is valid throughout the territory of India. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the permit was valid throughout the territory of India, Tribunal has clearly erred in granting recovery rights to the insurance company.
The Counsel Submitted that it appears that the Tribunal was influenced by the answer given by the witness during his cross examination wherein he had deposed that he was not aware if any authorisation was required for a heavy goods vehicle to be plied outside the home State where the vehicle was registered. He was neither asked nor has he stated that he did not have a permit. The permit was duly proved and exhibited before the Tribunal and clearly the Tribunal committed an error in not noticing the said permit.
The HC after evaluating the submissions stated that the award of the Tribunal in so far as it grants recovery rights to the insurance company against the appellant cannot be sustained. The HC set aside the award to the limited extent that it grants recovery rights to the insurance company against the appellant. The amount deposited by the petitioner was directed to be refunded.
The HC allowed the appeal.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: Shri Sukhbir Sharma v. The National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.
Case Details: MAC.APP. 277/2021 & CM APPL. 37502/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
