Delhi High Court
Manohar Lal Ahuja & Ors. vs Mohd. Allam Khan & Ors. on 25 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th January, 2012
+ FAO 328/2003
MANOHAR LAL AHUJA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.
versus
MOHD. ALLAM KHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for R-2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.
+ FAO 110/2003
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
SHRI MANOHAR LAL AHUJA & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate for
R-1 & 2.
Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for R-4.
+ MAC APP. 759/2011
MOHD. ALLAM KHAN & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for A-2.
versus
MANOHAR LAL AHUJA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate for
R-1 & 2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for
Insurance Company.
FAO 328/2003 Etc. Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These three Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 09.12.2002
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims
Tribunal) whereby while awarding the compensation of `
1,23,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the
Claimants (Appellants in FAO 328/2003) to be paid by the
Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Appellant in FAO
110/2003) granted recovery rights against the owner
Gurmeet Singh (the Appellant in MAC APP.759/2011).
FAO 328/2003
2. First of all, I shall take up the Appeal filed by the Claimants i.e.
FAO 328/2003 filed for enhancement of the compensation. It
was proved on record that the deceased was getting a salary of `
1800/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 2/3 towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied the
multiplier of '15' as per the age of the second Appellant. (Smt.
Krishna Ahuja), the deceased's mother.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellants is that only
50% of the deceased's income could have been taken towards
the personal and living expenses.
4. The compensation awarded towards non pecuniary damages
were low.
5. The Appellants must succeed on both counts. But, it must be
noticed that the deceased's mother was aged about 45 years and
thus, the appropriate multiplier was '14' instead of '15' as
applied by the Tribunal.
6. The loss of dependency comes to ` 1,51,200/- (1800/- - ½ x 12
x 14). On adding conventional sums of ` 25,000/- towards loss
of love and affection, `5,000/- towards loss of estate and `
5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the overall compensation
comes to ` 1,86,200/- Thus compensation is enhanced from `
1,23,000/- to ` 1,86,200/-.
7. The enhanced compensation of ` 63,200/- shall carry interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date
of payment, as granted by the Tribunal.
8. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest with Registrar General of
this Court within 30 days.
9. 50% of the enhanced amount shall be held in fixed deposit in
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi for one year.
Rest 50% shall be released immediately in favour of the
Claimants.
10. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
FAO 110/2003 and MAC APP. 759/2011
11. The only bone of contention is whether the third Respondent
Mohd. Allam Khan possessed a valid driving licence at the time
of the accident. The grievance of the Insurer (Oriental
Insurance Company) is that it should not have been fastened
with the liability to pay the compensation, once the breach of
terms of the policy was established.
12. On the other hand, the contention raised on behalf of the driver
and owner (Appellants in Cross MAC APP.759/2011) is that the
driver did possess a valid driving licence which was filed before
the Claims Tribunal along with the verification report. The said
driving licence was also verified by the report dated 07.09.2011
by an Investigator appointed by the Insurer and thus, the Insurer
was under obligation to indemnify the Insured.
13. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the driving licence
seized from the driver was found to be fake. It is important to
note that the Insurer examined Gurmeet Singh, owner of the
offending vehicle as RW-2. He testified that his driver Mohd.
Allam Khan did possess a valid driving licence at the time of
the accident. He deposed that he could produce the driving
licence of the driver.
14. As stated earlier, the driving licence along with the verification
report from Transport Authority, Allahabad was produced
before the Claims Tribunal but the same was not taken into
consideration on the ground that it was too late for the owner to
file the driving licence.
15. It is well settled that onus to prove the breach of the terms of
policy is on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company
examined the owner of the bus as its own witness who, as stated
above, testified that his driver possessed a valid driving licence
which was placed on record and was duly verified. The owner
was not concerned if the driver possessed another driving
licence which was found to be fake. Once, the owner shows
that he had seen the driving licence which was valid, the Insurer
cannot escape its liability.
16. FAO 110/2003 filed by the Insurance Company is therefore,
liable to the dismissed, whereas MAC APP. 759/2011 is
allowed.
17. The Appeals are disposed of in above terms. No costs.
18. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 25, 2012
vk
