New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Devender Pal Singh & Others.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4913 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        MAC APPEAL No.266/2009

                                      Reserved on: 26.09.2011
                                      Date of Order:30.09.2011

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                       ...... Appellant

                         Through:   Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.

                       Versus
SH. DEVENDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS.              ...... Respondents

                         Through:   Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                   No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?        No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                No

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company

against award dated 21st January 2009 passed by the Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in claim petition

No. 779/2004 filed by respondent No. 1/claimant for seeking

compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in road

accident which took place on 27th February, 1997 when his car

was struck by the offending vehicle DL 1C 4604 being driven by

respondent No. 2 allegedly in rash and negligent manner. The

said vehicle was owned by respondent No. 3 and was insured with

the appellant. The Tribunal vide the impugned award awarded

compensation amounting to `39,700/- with simple interest @9%

per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Since the

vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company, it was

directed to pay the awarded compensation.

The appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company

seeking right of recovery of the said amount from the owner of

the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 3. Only ground that was

averred and was urged before this court was that the respondent

No. 2, who was driving the offending vehicle was not having a

valid driving licence as on the date of accident and thus the same

being in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation and

was entitle to recover the same from the insured respondent No.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me

through the statement of R3W1 Naresh Chander, LDC, West Zone,

Delhi Transport Authority, who had stated about the driving

licence in the name of Puneet Sachdev i.e. the respondent No. 2,

(who was driving the offending vehicle) to be valid from 27.02.

1986 to 26.02.1991. A copy of the driving licence was proved as

Ex. R3W1/1. The learned Tribunal also recorded a finding in this

regard that as per the statement of this witness, the licence was

valid till 26.2.1991. However, the learned Tribunal was of the

view that since the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was

not produced or proved by the appellant, it could not be proved

that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the

insurance policy. Consequently, the appellant was held to be

responsible to indemnify the claimant.

Coming back to the testimony of R3W1, it is seen that

though the driving licence of Puneet Sachdev (Respondent No. 2)

was valid up till 26.02.1991, the witness also stated that he could

not say if the licence had been got renewed after 26.2.1991. He

further stated that renewal date was given on the back side of the

driving licence. It is noted that R3W1 was examined at the

behest of the insurance company/appellant. In his statement, as

noted above, he gave indication that renewal date was given on

the back side of the driving licence. In any case, the learned

Tribunal has also rightly observed that copy of the insurance

policy was not properly proved. R3W2, an official of the appellant

company stated that the office copy prepared at the time of issue

of original policy is not available in the office. What was placed

on record as mark A was stated to be prepared on the basis of the

record available with the insurance company. This was not the

appropriate mode of proving the insurance policy. It was neither

original nor the carbon copy of the original. Not only that, the

office record on the basis of which it was stated to have been

prepared, was also not produced before the Tribunal. There was

no substantive evidence led by the appellant with regard to the

terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal has

rightly not relied upon the said copy Mark A and recorded a

finding of fact that the appellant has not been able to prove the

violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned

award of the Tribunal. The Appeal merits dismissal and is hereby

dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 30, 2011 awanish