Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ved Kumar Chopra & Ors. on 24 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 5th August 2014
Decided on: 24th September, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 92/2008 & CM Nos.2266-2267/2008 & 9854/2009
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Shantha Devi Raman and
Mr.Garur M.V., Advocates
versus
VED KUMAR CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company
impugning certain directions in the Award dated 26.11.2007.
2. The brief facts are that on 07.12.1995 at about 10.15 am, the claimant
alongwith other occupants was going on a jeep on Bombay Agra Road. On
the way from Bombay to Nasik when the jeep reached Cherpole it was hit
by a truck coming from the opposite direction driven in a high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner. The truck hit the front right side of the jeep
and then dragged the jeep to some distance. The claimant sustained multiple
grievous injuries.
3. On compensation the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:-
"Nature of injuries and reimbursement : Rs.81,652/-
of medical bills
Pain and sufferings : Rs.40,000/-
Amenities of life : Rs.10,000/-
Permanent Disability : Rs.1,94,227/-
Conveyance and special diet : Rs.10,000/-
Total : Rs.3,35,879/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has confined her prayer
to only one argument namely that the Tribunal ought to have granted
recovery rights against the driver and owner of the vehicle who are
respondents No.2 and 3 respectively. It is urged that the driving license of
the driver respondent No.3 was forged and in view thereof, the appellant
ought to have been granted recovery rights. It is urged that the evidence has
been placed on record to show that the driving license is forged. The owner
of the vehicle never entered witness box to try and prove that he took
reasonable care to ensure that he had not breached any terms or condition of
the policy.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a statement made by the
driver before the police where he has categorically stated that the driving
license No. 781/MTR/94 was issued by RTO Mathura. Learned counsel for
the appellant also relies upon the statement of the concerned Clerk from the
said office of RTO Mathura, Sh. Makhan Singh R1W2 who has said that the
licence with serial No.781/MTR/94 which is the licence in question was
issued in the name of Joginder Pal S/o Sh. Ram Sarup. Hence, it was
pleaded that the driver in question namely Sh. Laxman Singh respondent
No.3 was not issued the driving licence in question.
6. There is merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.
The evidence of R1W2 Sh. Makhan Singh clearly shows that licence
No.781/MTR/94 was not issued to the driver. The reasoning of the Tribunal
in the impugned Award is that there is nothing to link the driver with this
licence No.781/MTR/94.
7. The driver in his own statement before the police accepts this to be his
license. Neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle entered appearance
or led any evidence.
8. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC 297, the appellant had
established that the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was forged.
Hence, they have also shown that there is deliberate breach on the part of the
owner of the vehicle of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Hence, in view of the above, the impugned Award is modified to the extent
that the appellant would be liable to pay the amount to the claimants, but are
granted recovery rights to recover the award amount from the owner and
driver respondents No.2 and 3, jointly or severally. The present appeal is
accordingly disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of
accordingly.
JAYANT NATH
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
raj
