Hira Lal vs Lt. Col. A.K. Dhimri & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5515 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 13th September, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 3/2010

        HIRA LAL                                                        ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Mr.Peeush Sharma, Advocate.

                    versus

        LT. COL. A.K. DHIMRI & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                        Through: Mr.Amit Gaur, Advocate for R-3
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. By virtue of this Appeal, the Appellant Hira Lal impugns a judgment dated 10th May, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of `10,00,000/- in favour of the Claimant, the Respondent Insurance Company was granted rights to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. In MAC APPL. No.359/2007, titled 'National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Lt. Col. A.K.Dimri & Ors.' filed by the Respondent Insurance Company, the amount of compensation has been reduced from `10,00,000/- to `5,21,000/-.

3. During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant (the owner) gave a reply to the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC served by the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company. He also sent a copy of the driving license to the counsel. The Appellant filed his affidavit Ex. R1W1/A

by way of his evidence. He stated that at the time of employment, the driver Fateh Khan had a valid driving licence. He took the driving test of the driver and was satisfied about the driving skills of the driver and this part of the Appellant's testimony was not challenged in cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that the driving licence was fabricated.

4. The Respondent Insurance Company preferred not to even verify the genuineness of the driving licence, a copy of which was filed by the Appellant along with the Appeal. In compliance of this Court's order dated 12th January, 2010 a verification report dated 5th September, 2011 was filed by the investigator stating that the licence is not genuine.

5. The Respondent Insurance Company failed to prove willful and conscious breach of the terms of policy and was, therefore, not entitled to recovery rights. (United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338; National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 and a judgment of this Court in Sanjay v. Suresh Chand & Ors., FAO 445/2000, decided on 03.08.2012).

6. The Appeal, therefore, has to be allowed and the impugned order to the extent granting recovery rights against the Appellant is set aside.

7. Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant.

8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

G.P. MITTAL (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 13, 2012/v