Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shyam Lal & Ors. on 17 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 599/2009
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .... Appellant
Through Mr. D.K.Sharma, Adv.
versus
SHYAM LAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited takes
exception to a judgment dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while
awarding a compensation of `2,05,000/-, the Appellant's plea to
grant recovery rights was rejected.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance
Company that it had successfully proved the breach of the terms
of the policy by examining R3W1 Dal Chand, LDC from RTO
office, East Zone, Shahdara, Delhi and R3W2 Anil Kumar
Sharma, Assistant Manager of the Appellant. Since it was
established that the driving licence was fake, the Appellant was
entitled to recovery rights on discharging its statutory liability to
pay the compensation to the third party.
3. The driving licence DL No.C05022000138852 seized vide
memo Ex.PW-1/3 by the police was got verified from the
Transport Authority and it was revealed that the said licence
had not been issued by the concerned Transport Authority.
4. First of all, I would refer to R3W2's Anil Kumar's testimony
who deposed that a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was
issued to the driver and the owner. The notices were proved as
Ex.R3W2/B and Ex.R3W2/C and the postal receipts and UPC
were proved as Ex.R3W2/D and Ex.R3W2/E respectively. No
other driving licence was produced by the driver and the owner
in spite of service of the notice. R3W1 Dal Chand testified that
the driving licence No.C05022000138852 was not issued by
their authority. He also proved a report Ex.R3W1/1 to this
effect. He deposed that the said driving licence was fake. In
cross-examination by the counsel for the Claimants, the witness
deposed that since this number was not found in the computer,
the driving licence was fake.
5. From R3W1 and R3W2's testimonies it is clear that the driver
and owner i.e. Respondents No.3 and 4 failed to provide any
other driving licence of the third Respondent and the licence
seized by the police was fake.
6. Respondent No.4 has not come forward with any explanation as
to the circumstances under which the vehicle was entrusted to
Respondent No.3. Thus, he is guilty of conscious and willful
breach of the terms of the policy. I am fortified in this view by a
judgment of the learned Singh Judge of this Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors., ILR 2007(II)
Delhi 733 and the Supreme Court judgments in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3
SCC 297; Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21;
and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors.,
(2003) 3 SCC 338.
7. The impugned judgment is therefore liable to be set aside in so
far as it declined recovery rights to the Appellant. I order
accordingly and hold that the Appellant Insurance Company is
entitled to recover the compensation paid from Respondents
No.3 and 4, the driver and owner of the vehicle. In execution
of this very Judgment without having recourse to independent
civil proceedings.
8. The statutory deposit of ` 25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
10. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2012
vk
