Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Laxmi Yadav & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4597 Del

$~9
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Decided on: 3rd August, 2012

+      MAC.APP. 308/2010

       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
                    Through  Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate

                      versus


       LAXMI YADAV & ORS                            ..... Respondents
                   Through             None


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. By virtue of this Appeal, the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. seeks recovery rights in respect of the compensation of `23,83,481/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Respondents No.1 to 4 on the ground that the driver, that is, Respondent No.5 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

2. It is urged that the driving licence was issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 on 01.07.2002. It expired on 30.06.2005. The licence was renewed only on 21.09.2005. This accident

took place on 22.09.2005, that is, one day after the accident and since the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, the Appellant successfully proved the breach of the terms of the policy and was entitled to recovery rights.

3. The Claim Petition was instituted before the Claims Tribunal in May, 2006. A written statement was filed by the driver and the owner, Respondents No.5 and 6 (Respondents No.1 and 2 before the Claims Tribunal) admitting the accident but denying the negligence on the part of the Respondent No.5. The Appellant Insurance Company also filed a written statement and took a general plea that if the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the relevant date, the Appellant Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the insured. The Appellant never amended the written statement to take the specific plea regarding non- possession of the driving licence by the driver. It did not serve any notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC requiring the Respondents No.5 and 6 to produce the driving licence, if any, in their possession valid on the date of the accident.

4. It is well settled that with a view to avoid its liability the Insurance Company is not only required to show that the condition laid down in Section 149(a) or (b) are satisfied and that the insured has committed willful and conscious breach of the terms of policy. As stated above, in the instant case the Appellant never required the insured to produce the driving licence of the driver. In the circumstances, the Appellant failed to prove willful breach of the terms of the policy by the

insured. The impugned order does not call for any interference.

5. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

6. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

7. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 03, 2012 pst