The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Kanti And Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 5876 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2246 of 2002
 
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Kanti And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- K.S.Amist
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.B.Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. Heard Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenges the judgment and award dated 26.8.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Auraiyya (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 47 of 2000 awarding a sum of Rs.3,79,500/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% in favour of the claimants.

3. Facts are not necessary as quantum, accident and involvement of vehicle and policy being in vogue are not in dispute. The accident caused the death is also not in dispute.

4. The sole dispute raised before this Court in this appeal is that the owner nor the driver driving truck No. UGA 762 who was said to be holding license No. J9250/ALL/76 issued by R.T.A. Allahabad and was filed as paper No. 28G. The investigator inquired form the R.T.O and the report was filed. The Report of the R.T.O was also on record. The compensation awarded was payable by the owner and not the Insurance Company.

5. The appeal requires to be allowed on one ground namely the judgment of the Apex Court in Singh Ram Vs. Nirmala and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 800 thereafter reiterated in Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Raja Ram and others, AIR 2018 Sc 3789 whereby it has been held that if it is proved that the vehicle was driven by a person not having proper driving license, the Insurance Company should be given recovery rights. However, neither the owner nor the driver of the insured stepped into to the witness box. Neither the Insurance Company proved that the owner was aware that the license of the driver was not a valid driving license.

6. The Tribunal has also held in favour of the Insurance Company but neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court it has been demonstrated as to whether the owner was aware about the finding of fact that the driving license produced by the driver was not in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. In that view of the matter, the limited recovery rights are given to the Insurance Company. However, the procedure as per the judgment of the Apex Court reiterated in Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Raja Ram and others, AIR 2018 SC 3789 is that the Tribunal will examine whether the owner of the vehicle was aware of the fakeness of the driving license.

8. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019/DKS