Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Varun Kumar @ Teenu & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6999 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision: 6th December, 2012
+    MAC. APP. 273/2011

     ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.               ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur & Mr.Amit Guar,
                            Advocates.
              Versus

     VARUN KUMAR @ TEENU & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Megha Gaur, Adv. for Mr. Mohit
                          Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
                          Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Adv. for R-2 & 3.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding the compensation of ` 1,08,000/- in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 04.04.2007 the Appellant's plea of breach of the terms and conditions policy was rejected.

2. The driver of the offending vehicle (Second Respondent) admittedly possessed a licence to drive heavy motor vehicle which entitled him to drive a medium motor vehicle and LMV (commercial). In the instance case, the accident was caused by a goods vehicle Mahindra Auto (Three- wheeler bearing No. DL-1LF-4932).

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that specialized skills are required to drive the three-wheeler and although the driver was competent to drive LMV (Commercial), he was not entitled to drive a three-wheeler.

4. No evidence was led by the Appellant to prove that any specialized licence was required to drive a three-wheeler goods vehicle or that the person holding the licence to drive LMV (transport) was not competent to drive a three-wheeler goods vehicle.

5. It was for the Appellant to prove that special licence was required by the driver. The Appellant having failed to prove the same cannot be permitted to say that the licence possessed by the driver was not valid to drive goods vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal rightly held that on the basis of the licence possessed by the driver he could drive the vehicle involved in the accident.

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

7. The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the First Respondent (Claimant) in terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

8. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

G.P. MITTAL JUDGE DECEMBER 04, 2012 cl