Vijay Kumar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3023 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision:7th May, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.973/2011

         VIJAY KUMAR                          ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Mr. K.R. Pamei, Advocate

                        Versus

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
                                     ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Niraj Singh, Advocate for
                               the Respondent No.1.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 28.04.2011 whereby while granting a compensation of `2,40,183/- in favour of the Respondent No.2, the Appellant Vijay Kumar was made liable to reimburse the compensation to the Respondent No.1 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on the ground that there was breach of the policy condition.

2. The Insurance Company's case was that the Appellant did not possess any valid permit as required under Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act resulting into breach of the terms of the policy under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. A photocopy of

the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle No.DL-1LE- 1547 has been placed on record which shows the Unlaiden Weight of the vehicle as 1625 kg and the Laiden Weight as 2750 kg. As per Section 66(3(i), there is no requirement to obtain a permit in respect of the goods vehicle where the gross vehicle weight does not weigh 3000 kg. The copy of the registration certificate was available on the Trial Court record which escaped the attention of the Claims Tribunal.

3. Since there is no requirement to obtain a permit, there is no question of breach of the terms of the policy. The impugned order granting recovery rights against the Appellant is accordingly set aside.

4. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

5. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant.

6. A copy of the order be given Dasti to the counsel for the Appellant.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 07, 2012 pst