New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sanjay Sharma & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5281 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 4th September, 2012
+       MAC APP. 500/2008

        NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                               ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.


                                       versus

        SANJAY SHARMA & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Nemo.


+       MAC APP. 503/2008

        NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD.             ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.

                         versus


        KANTI BALLABH SHARMA & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                     Through: Nemo.

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

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL.13400/2008 (delay)

There is a delay of 37 days in filing MAC APP. 500/2008. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay of 37 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.

The Application is allowed.

MAC APP. 500/2008 & MAC APP.503/2008

1. These Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 23.04.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `64,000/- and `33,500/- was awarded in favour of Respondents Sanjay Sharma and Kanti Ballabh Sharma respectively for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 1103.2007.

2. The only ground of challenge is that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive vehicle No.PB-13M-1884 and thus, the insured i.e. Respondent No.3 Baldev Singh committed willful breach of the terms of policy. It is urged that the Claims Tribunal erred in making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

3. A perusal of the written statement filed by the Appellant shows that it did not allege any breach of the terms of the policy. It was content to aver that 'the answering respondent is at liberty to take plea of opportunity u/s. 170 and 149 (2) of the M.V. Act at any stage'.

4. Thus, the Appellant never took up a plea that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a vehicle involved in the accident. No notice was served upon the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle to produce the driving licence of the driver. Even the insurance policy containing the condition whose breach is alleged, has not been proved. Thus, it is too far fetched to say that the Insurance Company successfully proved the breach of the terms of policy.

5. The Appeals are devoid of any merit; the same are accordingly dismissed.

6. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

7. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 04, 2012 vk