New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jagpreet Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7086 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 11th December, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 346/2011

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate.

                          Versus

         JAGPREET SINGH & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                      Through:            Mr.Santosh Chauriha, Advocate for R-1

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

                                   JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The only ground of challenge in the instant Appeal is that the driving licence possessed by Respondent No.2 (Hari Narain Chaudhary) driver of the offending vehicle was fake. Thus, Respondent No.3 owner of the offending vehicle and the insured committed a breach of the terms and conditions of policy entitling the Appellant Insurance Company to avoid its liability.

2. During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant failed to adduce any evidence that the driving licence possessed by the driver was fake. The report produced before the Trial Court pertains to some other licence. Para 24 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"24. Although, R3 has examined Sh.S.C. Mahajan, R3W1 to prove the fact that the driving licence of R1, which was got verified through the investigator, was found to be fake and R1 and R2 did not respond to the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 11/8/2010 yet it was conceded by Ld. Counsel for

R3 that the driving licence of R1 was having the number 5613705 but the investigator had obtained the report in respect of 5613105. Thus, the report Ex. R3W1/H of the investigator and the report Ex. R3W1/G of the concerned MLO are not of the driving licence of R1."

3. The Appellant moved an Application being CM APPL. No.7695/2011 to lead additional evidence; the same was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 08.10.2012.

4. Since the Appellant Insurance Company failed to prove that the licence possessed by Respondent No.2 was fake and that Respondent No.3 willfully and consciously permitted the driver to drive the offending vehicle with fake driving licence committing breach of the terms and conditions of policy, the Appeal has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.

5. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 11, 2012 v