United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Kamlesh Kumar & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 4784 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+            FAO 86/2003

      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.              ..... Appellant
                      Through: Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate.
               versus
      KAMLESH KUMAR & OTHERS.                ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary and
                               Ms. Sushma Sachdeva,
                               Advocates for the respondent
                               No.3.

%                         Date of Decision : September 26, 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 only point sought to be urged in this appeal by the learned

counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Insurance

Company is entitled to total exoneration from the payment of the

award amount, and the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

ought to have afforded the said relief to the appellant-Insurance

Company instead of directing the Insurance Company to pay the

award amount to the respondent No.1 with liberty to recover the said

amount from the respondent No.3-insured after satisfying the award.

2. The aforesaid aspect is now well-settled by the 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.

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 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I

find no reason to interfere with the award. The deposited amount

shall be released to the claimant with interest thereon. Any shortfall

shall be made good by the Insurance Company within 30 days from

today.

4. The appeal is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as

to costs.

5. Records of the Claims Tribunal be sent back to the concerned

Tribunal forthwith.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) September 26, 2011 ak