Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Raghunath & Ors. on 25 July, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25th July, 2013
FAO No. 296/2002
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
RAGHUNATH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Moreover, vide order dated 25.04.2013, the Registry was directed to send
the court notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr.Subhash Gupta,
Advocate.
2. As per office report, none is residing at the given address and their
counsel also chose not to appear. Hence, this Court has no option but to
proceed with the matter.
3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
16.04.2002, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of
Rs.6,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence
despite that the learned Tribunal has refused to give recovery rights to the
appellant/Insurance Company against the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. Learned counsel submitted that RW2 has proved the carbon copy of
the insurance policy for vehicle No. DHL-2444 for the period 25.09.1993 to
24.09.1994 as Ex.RW2/1 issued in the name of Ravinder Kumar. He stated
that under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the vehicle was
to be plied by a licensed driver.
6. To strengthen argument he has relied upon a case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamla & Ors., 2001 ACJ 843, wherein the Supreme
Court has observed as under:-
"12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake
licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on
account of some officer renewing the same with or without
knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers
any licensing authority to "renew a driving licence issued under
the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry."
No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence
and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake
licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it
contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever
remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including
some statutory authorities would have acted on the document
unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.
13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sucha
Singh (supra) that renewal of a document which purports to be
a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with vali`
dity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very
dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand
as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the
world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake
documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would
remain null and void for ever and it would not acquire legal
validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification
subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and
law cannot afford to validate a forgery."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
and perused the record.
8. RW1 has deposed that as per the record brought by him, DL No.
1474/T.O.valid upto 02.04.1997 was not issued from their office. As per the
record, DL No. 282/Shimla/78 issued by the Licensing Authority, Shimla in
the name of one Himmat Kumar Sood S/o Prem Sagar Sood; and the same
had been renewed from their office against entry No.1474 dated 26.05.1993.
9. In the cross-examination, RW1 has admitted that the licence number
and renewal number of the driving licence differ from each other. The
learned Tribunal asked them to bring the record in respect of particular DL
No. 1474 valid upto 02.04.1997. He stated that no new licence had been
issued from their office till the year 1997 against entry No. 1474. Thus, it is
established that driving licence in question is fake.
10. Moreover, owner and driver of the offending vehicle were proceeded
ex parte before the learned Tribunal. As recorded above, none appeared on
behalf of the respondents before this Court despite service.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/Insurance Company is
given the recovery rights against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9.
12. The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.
13. Consequently, the Registry is directed to release the statutory amount
to the appellant/Insurance Company.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JULY 25, 2013
sb
