Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt.Prem Wati & Ors. on 18 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th December, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 1289/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate.
Versus
SMT.PREM WATI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
C.M. APPL No.21032/2012(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. 1289/2012
1. This Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of ` 89,315/- was awarded in favour of the First
Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on 15.01.2011.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company states that
quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not
challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.
3. The only ground of challenge to the impugned judgment is that
Respondent No.11 (the owner) committed a breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy as the driving licence possessed by Respondent
No.10 (the driver of the offending vehicle) was fake.
4. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of breach of the terms and
conditions of policy in Para 23 of the impugned judgment, which is
extracted hereunder:-
"23. The Insurance Company has raised the defence that the
vehicle was being plied without valid D/L. The Insurance
Company has relied heavily on the report of the RTA,
Mainpuri, received pursuant to the summons sent wherein it
had been reported that the driver was competent only to drive a
private vehicle and the DL annexed along with the summon,
reflects that he had been authorized to drive a HTV, had not
been issued by the above mentioned RTA. However, in this
respect, the statement made by the owner gains significance as
he stated that the driver had informed him that his D/L had
been valid and genuine. He in the cross-examination, denied
the suggestion that at the time of employment, he had not seen
the D/L of the driver. The owner has thus put the onus back on
the Insurance Company to reflect that there had been a breach
on the part of owner and the breach of policy conditions was
willful and deliberate and/or at least in the knowledge of the
owner, Pankaj Gupta when he employed the driver, Sanjiv
Kumar to ply the vehicle. It is settled law that the owner is not
required to travel extra mile to seek verification of D/L when
the same is shown at the time of employment and/or seek its
verification from the RTA. It is sufficient if from his side, he has
exercised common prudence reasonably and has obtained the
copy of D/L shown to him by the driver and has checked the
same. There is nothing on record to reflect that the owner was
aware about the factum that the D/L was not genuine despite
which he allowed the driver to ply the offending vehicle. There
is also nothing on record to reflect that the driver was not
tested by the owner qua his ability to drive the offending vehicle
and he was not satisfied despite which he took the risk of
handing over the offending vehicle to him. From the owner's
side, he has shown sufficient wisdom and accordingly in view of
the settled provisions in case titled, Ram Babu Tiwari v.
United Indian Insurance Co.Ltd. 2008 ACJ 2654 and
National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1
SC, I am of the view that the Insurance Company has not
proved that the default of terms and conditions has been made
willful and accordingly, the prayer of the Insurance Company
for rights to recover the award amount from the driver/owner,
is declined."
5. Thus, it would be seen that the owner had seen the driving licence
possessed by the driver and was satisfied about its genuineness before
appointing him as a driver. Nothing was placed on record by the
Appellant Insurance Company which would suggest that there was wilful
breach of the terms and conditions of policy.
6. The conclusion reached by the Claims Tribunal is inconsonance with the
settled proposition of law (see United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338, Ram Babu Tiwari v. United Indian
Insurance Co.Ltd. 2008 ACJ 2654 and National Insurance Company v.
Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 SC).
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submits that
there was delay in deposit of the award amount and the Claims Tribunal
directed payment of interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay.
8. If the amount is deposited by the Appellant Insurance Company within a
period of four weeks with the Claims Tribunal with an advance notice to
the First Respondent, the Claims Tribunal's order awarding penal interest
@ 12% per annum for the delayed period shall not take effect.
9. The Appeal is dismissed in above terms.
10. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company after proof of deposit of the award amount
is filed with the Registrar General of this Court.
11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2012
v
