Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co ... vs Gulabi Devi & Ors on 17 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17th April, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.912/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
GULABI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Sharma, Adv. for
R1 to R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 30.07.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.6,95,336/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition, i.e., 13.01.2010 till the notice under Order 21
Rule 1 CPC is issued by the respondents (before Tribunal) in favour of the
petitioner (before Tribunal).
2. Instant appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the permit of
the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. Thus, there was
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In such
eventuality, Ld. Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from any
liability or alternatively granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant
and against respondent nos. 5 and 6.
3. On perusal of the trial court record it is revealed that the permit
pertaining to the offending vehicle is on record as Ex.R3W1/2. The onus
was upon the Insurance Company to prove the fact that the owner of the
offending vehicle did not have a valid permit. The said fact could have been
proved by the Insurance Company by summoning the record relating to the
permit of the offending vehicle in question from the concerned Transport
Authority. The appellant could have also proved the said fact by appointing
an Investigator, who could have visited the concerned Transport Authority
and obtained a report that the owner had no permit to ply the vehicle in
Delhi. Moreover, no notice for production of the valid permit was issued by
the Insurance Company to the owner of the offending vehicle. The record
was also not summoned from the concerned Transport Authority to prove
the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have any permit for
plying the same in Delhi. Moreover, no efforts have been made by the
appellant / Insurance Company to prove the validity of the permit during the
pendency of this appeal.
4. In addition, despite repeated opportunities, respondent no.5, driver of
the offending vehicle has not been served. Due to which vide order dated
14.01.2013, cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the appellant / Insurance
Company. Thereafter vide order dated 06.11.2013, cost of Rs.15,000/-
further imposed upon the appellant / Insurance Company. Again vide order
dated 07.02.2014 another cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed upon the
appellant / insurance Company. Since the cost was not deposited by the
appellant / Insurance Company, therefore, vide order dated 31.03.2014,
further cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon them.
5. In view of the facts notice above, I find no merit in the instant appeal.
Same is accordingly dismissed.
6. I direct the appellant / Insurance Company to deposit the cost amount
as noted above in favour of the respondents / claimants in equal proportion.
The statutory amount shall be adjusted in the cost amount and the balance
compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondents /
claimants on taking steps by them.
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 17, 2014
jg
