Delhi High Court
M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Mohan Lal Grover & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP.No. 325/2006
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
MOHAN LAL GROVER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 23.01.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation
for a sum of Rs.1,18,224/- with interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued the instant appeal only on the ground that the
respondent No.1, i.e., driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
driving licence on the date of the accident, i.e., 08.10.2003. Despite that, in
para-16 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has erred in recording
as under:-
"16. In the present case it is proved on record that the driver
was infact holding valid driving licence previously which was
valid upto 22.6.01 and thereafter he had renewed it on 13.9.04,
meaning thereby that he was not disqualified to hold the driving
licence. Moreover, it is not proved on record that infact the
insured was guilty of negligence or failed to exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of
policy and he was aware that the driver is not having valid
driving licence, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation and since R1 was the driver and R2 was the
owner, he is viscously liable tan dR3 had insured him against
damages to indemnify therefore R3 is liable to pay the
compensation."
3. Learned counsel submitted that the police had seized the renewed
driving licence of the respondent No.1, which was valid from 13.09.2004 to
12.09.2007. However, he was not holding any driving licence on the date of
the accident, as noted above. In such eventuality, the learned Tribunal ought
to have exonerated the appellant or in alternative would have granted
recovery rights in favour of the appellant.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the instant
appeal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their reply alongwith the copy of
driving licence, which was issued by the Transport Authority, Janakpuri, i.e.,
on 13.09.2001 and valid upto 12.09.2004. Also placed on record copy of
renewed licence, which was valid from 13.09.2004 to 12.09.2007. The
appellant/Insurance Company, pursuant to order dated 29.08.2013, verified
the same from the concerned Transport Authority and vide its report dated
08.10.2013 certified that the said licence was valid from 13.09.2001 to
12.09.2004 and thereafter, the same was renewed on 13.09.2004 being valid
upto 12.09.2007.
5. From the facts noted above, it is established that the respondent
No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence on
the date of the accident, i.e., on 08.10.2003. Accordingly, learned Tribunal
has rightly neither exonerated the appellant from the liability of paying the
compensation nor granted recovery rights in its favour.
6. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant
appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 28, 2014
sb
