Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ram Chander & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1244 Del

                                              UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      MAC. APP. 233/2010 and CM Nos. 6899/2010 and 6900/2010

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.            ..... Appellant
                 Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
         versus
RAM CHANDER & ORS                    ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. S. Tabrez, Advocate for
                            the respondent No.3

%                         Date of Decision : March 01, 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?

                             J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and award

dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.29-A/2003, whereby the appellant -

Insurance Company was held liable to pay to the claimants (the

respondents No.1 and 2 herein) a sum of ` 4,36,800/- with interest at

the rate of 7.5% per annum, if any, from the date of filing of the

petition till the date of its realisation.

2. Notice issued to the respondents No.1 and 2, who are the

claimants, and the respondent No.3, who is the owner of the

offending vehicle, is served. The counsel for the respondent No.3 has

entered appearance, while the claimants are unrepresented.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is admitted and taken

up for final hearing at this stage.

4. The sole grievance of the appellant - Insurance Company in the

present appeal is that the appellant - Insurance Company is not liable

to pay the award amount and in the alternative is entitled to recovery

right in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No.3 - the

owner of the offending vehicle.

5. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, the learned counsel for the appellant

contends that the appellant - Insurance Company had examined a

witness R1W1, namely, Gurbax Rai Chawla, Deputy Manager, on

behalf of the Insurance Company, who proved on record the driving

licence verification report of the driver of the offending vehicle

received from the Licencing Authority Guwahati, Assam, mentioning

therein that the said driving licence was not issued by the said

Authority. Mr. Gaur submits that the Insurance Company had also

summoned the witness from the concerned Licencing Authority

Kamrup, Guwahati, but despite service of the said notice the witness

did not appear. It is further pointed out that a sum of ` 8,000/- was

deposited on 10th March, 2008 towards diet money for the

summoning of the said witness.

6. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for

the respondent No.3 - owner, who did not appear before the learned

Tribunal and was proceeded ex parte, and now states that he has no

objection to the appellant being allowed to adduce additional

evidence by examining the witness from the Licencing Authority

Kamrup, Guwahati.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the case is remanded back to the

concerned Tribunal with permission to the appellant to examine the

witness from the Licencing Authority Kamrup, Guwahati. The

learned Tribunal shall issue notice for appearance of the parties

before it on a date fixed by it and thereafter shall proceed further in

the matter, so as to enable it to pass directions for the summoning of

the witness from Licencing Authority Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam,

i.e., the concerned Transport Authority.

8. Liberty is given to the respondent No.3 on his verbal prayer to

move an application for setting aside of the ex-parte order passed

against the respondent No.3 and thereafter for adducing evidence with

the permission of the concerned Tribunal. It is clarified that the

deposited amount shall be disbursed to the claimants, i.e., the

respondents No.1 and 2 as per the order of the Tribunal and after the

appellant and the respondent No.3 have adduced their respective

evidence, the Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh only in respect

of the breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and grant of

recovery rights to the appellant against the respondent No.3.

9. MAC. APP. 233/2010 and CM Nos. 6899/2010 and 6900/2010

stand disposed of accordingly. The statutory deposited amount of

` 25,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant, as prayed.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) March 01, 2011 km