Ram Saran Chauhan vs Shri Vishal Singh Alias Vishal ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 5368 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 7th September, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.477/2009

         RAM SARAN CHAUHAN                             ..... Appellant
                     Through: Ms.Shweta Singh, Proxy Counsel for
                              Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate

                        versus

         SHRI VISHAL SINGH ALIAS VISHAL
         ROSHAN & ORS                                ..... Respondents
                        Through: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for R-3

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

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Ram Saran Chauhan (owner of the motorcycle No.DL-4S-

AU-4854) impugns the judgment dated 13th February, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a sum of `11,850/- in favour of Respondent No.1, Insurance Company Respondent No.3 was exonerated of its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the Appellant committed willful breach of the terms of the policy.

2. On the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Toyata Qualis bearing No.DL-8CJ-9578 by Respondent No.2. It was found that after the accident the injured was

removed to Pranami Hospital where MLC was prepared. Respondent No.1 claimed that he remained confined to bed for a period of two months. The X-ray did not reveal any bony injury. The Claims Tribunal thus, awarded a sum of `5,000/- towards pain and injury, `1850/- towards expenses on medical treatment, `2500/- towards expenditure on special diet and conveyance and `2500/- towards loss of earnings and enjoyment of life.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that merely because the driver did not possess any driving licence or the licence held by the driver was fake, the Insurance Company could not avoid its liability.

4. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of liability as under:-

"8. Respondent No.1 in its written statement made a categorical claim that driver of offending vehicle Respondent No.1 was not holding valid licence. Respondent No.1 himself entered the witness box. He admitted that he was driving vehicle No.DL-8CJ-9578 on 20.10.05. He claimed that accident had occurred while he was trying to save a lady. He possessed a driving licence which had been seized. Licence had been obtained by him from District Mau, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, he made a very strange claim. He claimed that he did not remember as to when he had obtained it. He did not have any copy of licence. He did not have any receipt and finally clarified that he had not been tested by authorities before licence was issued to him. Respondent No.3 examined Mr.Amit Kumar. He testified that they had investigated about the licence of Respondent No.1 from the licencing authority Mau. They came to know that no licence had been issued by the authority. They had issued notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC, copy of which was Ex. RW2/2. Insured had been called upon to produce original documents including driving licence and badge of driver. The notice had been duly served upon insured. A.D. Card was Ex. RW2/4 while postal receipt was Ex.RW2/3. It became duty of insured to have produced the original driving licence of the driver upon receipt of notice. He did not do so. Moreover, as I have

already discussed earlier testimony of Respondent No.1 regarding his driving licence, does not generate even iota of confidence. I, therefore, hold that Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any driving licence at the time of accident. The issue is decided in favour of Respondent No.3 and against Respondents No.1 and 2.

5. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company thus, issued notice to the Insured to produce the driving licence. The driving licence was not produced. The Appellant did not come forward with any explanation as to under which circumstances the vehicle was handed over to Respondent No.2. Thus, the Claims Tribunal's finding that there was a breach of the terms of the policy on the part of the Insured (the Appellant herein) cannot be faulted. Normally, it is for the authorised insurer to perform its statutory obligation to satisfy the award in the first instance and then to recover the compensation paid, from the owner and the driver.

6. In the instant case as stated above, a small amount of compensation of `11,850/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. Statutory amount of `25,000/- has already been deposited by the Appellant at the time of filing of the Appeal.

7. In the circumstances, it is directed that the amount of compensation awarded to Respondent No.1 along with interest upto the date of this order shall be released to Respondent No.1 from out of the statutory amount. The balance amount shall be refunded to the Appellant along with interest, if any, accrued on the statutory deposit.

8. The Registry shall issue notice to Respondent No.1 to come forward to collect the amount.

9. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 07, 2012 v