Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gyatri Devi & Ors. on 13 April, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 13th April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 508/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Advocate
Versus
GYATRI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By virtue of this appeal, the Appellant National Insurance
company Limited seeks recovery rights in respect of amount of
compensation of `5,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum paid to Respondents no.1 to 5.
2. Along with the appeal, an Application (CM APPL.13769/2008)
was also filed by the Appellant to lead additional evidence to
prove that the driving licence possessed by the driver was fake.
Respondent no.6, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing
registration no.HR-63-2928 was served with the notice of the
appeal and the said Application.
3. Mr. Narender Gautam, Advocate appeared on behalf of
Respondent no.6 on 06.01.2011, when the application for
additional evidence to prove that the driving licence of the
driver was fake, was allowed. It appears that thereafter, none
appeared on behalf of Respondent no.6.
4. By way of additional evidence, Appellant examined Mr. Apurba
Kumar Ghoria, an investigator who deposed that upon
investigation, the driving lience Mark 'A' was found to be fake.
5. The Insurance Company also produced Mr. Tapan Kumar
Mallik, RTO, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal as a
witness.
6. This Court in its order dated 27.03.2014 concluded that the
driving licence held by the driver was fake. Paras 1 to 4 of the
order dated 27.03.2014 are extracted hereunder:-
"1. Pursuant to order dated 11.03.2014, Mr.
Tapan Kumar Mallik, RTO, Barasat, 24- Parganas
(North), West Bengal appeared in person
withoriginal record of driving licence no. WB-
25/065342.
2. As per the Register, no licence was issued vide
no. 065342. This court has seen the original
Register wherein it is found that Sl. No.065342 and
065343 are blank pages and no licence was issued
to anyone on these numbers.
3. It proves that the driver of the offending vehicle
was having forged licence.
4. Original Register seen and returned to the
abovementioned officer. His appearance is
dispensed with in this matter....."
7. Respondent no.6 had sufficient notice to rebut the plea raised by
the Appellant Insurance Company but he failed to do so. In
view of the order dated 27.03.2014, it is held that the driving
licence possessed by the driver was fake. Respondent no.6, the
owner has also not come forward with any explanation as to
how the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-63-2928, involved
in the accident was handed over to the driver.
8. Consequently, the Appellant has successfully proved that there
was conscious and wilful breach of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy on the part of Respondent no.6 (the owner).
9. It is well settled that once the insurer establishes a willful
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on
the part of insured, it shall have the right to recover the
compensation paid to the victim/his legal representatives under
statutory liability. (See: Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy,
(1996) 5 SCC 21; Skandia Insurance Company Limited v.
Kokilaben Chandravadan ,(1987) 2 SCC 654; and New India
Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 342).
10. In view of this, the appeal is allowed in above terms.
11. It is directed that the Appellant is entitled to recover the amount
of compensation paid from Respondent no.6 in the execution of
this very judgment.
12. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
13. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 13, 2015
vk
