Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Narmada Rai & Ors. on 3 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~R-28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd May, 2012
+ FAO. 736/2002
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
NARMADA RAI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 03.09.2002
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the
Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a
compensation of `22,500/-, the Appellant's defence of
breach of policy condition was rejected.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
the Respondent No.2 Adbul Qadir, the driver of the
offending vehicle was challaned by the police for
offences under Section 279 and 338 IPC apart from under
Section 3 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, which sufficiently established that the driver did not
possess a valid driving licence. It is urged that this
indicates the breach of the condition of the policy was
writ large. Appellant was, therefore, entitled to at least
recovery rights against the insured.
3. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the question of breach of
the policy condition in paras 16 and 17 of the impugned
judgment, which are extracted hereunder:
"16. Ld. counsel for respondent No.3 has
submitted that respondent No.3 has no liability
under the insurance contract to indemnify the
respondent or to compensate the petitioner
because this is a clear case of violation of terms
and conditions of the insurance contract. He
has submitted that as per the insurance
contract the offending car could be driven only
by a person holding a valid driving licence.
However, in this case respondent no.1 was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of
accident as it is apparent from the charge sheet
Ex.P1 vide which respondent was also
prosecuted for offence U/s 3/181 Motor Vehicle
Act i.e. for driving the car without a licence.
He has also submitted that though respondent
No.1 appeared as RW-1 he neither produced
his driving licence or its duplicate copy nor he
supplied the particulars of that driving licence
but he only came out with a vague explanation
that after the accident he was beaten by public
and his driving licence was snatched.
17. Even if it is assumed that respondent
No.1 was not having a valid driving licence, it
would not help respondent No.3 because he has
failed to prove the terms and conditions of
insurance contract. In absence of those terms
and conditions, it is not possible to conclude
that there were any violation of terms and
conditions of insurance contract by the insurer.
Thus, I conclude that respondent No.3 has
failed to prove violation of insurance contract
by respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent
No.3 is also under contractual as well as
statutory obligation to compensate the
petitioner for the damages caused to her. Thus,
I conclude that all the three respondents are
liable to compensate the petitioner for the
damages caused to him."
4. The driver Abdul Qadir entered the witness box as RW1.
He testified that after the accident, he was beaten by the
public and his driving licence was snatched. In cross-
examination, no suggestion was given to RW1 that his
driving licence was not snatched by the public. He was
not questioned if he made any effort to obtain a duplicate
driving licence. In the circumstances, it was difficult to
say that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence
on the date of the accident.
5. On top of it, the Appellant Insurance Company failed to
prove the breach of the condition of the insurance policy
and, therefore, as held by the Claims Tribunal could not
avoid the liability.
6. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to
the Appellant Insurance Company.
7. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2012
pst
