Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Ramesh Chandra & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 1686 Del

$-18

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Decided on: 26th February, 2015
+       MAC.APP. 425/2013

        ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                            ..... Appellant
                      Through: Ms. Arpan Wadhawan, Adv.

                     versus

        RAMESH CHANDRA & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv. for
                               R-1.
                               Mr. V.P.S. Raghav, Adv. for
                               R-3.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant

is that the driving licence held by the driver at the time of the

accident was fake and therefore, recovery rights ought to have

been granted to the Appellant Insurance Company.

2. It is well settled that the insurer is not only to prove breach of

the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of

the insured, but also to prove that breach on the part of the

insured was willful and conscious. It is admitted by the learned

counsel for the Appellant and was also held by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) that no notice

under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908(CPC) was given to the owner or driver of the vehicle to

produce the driving licence.

3. The learned counsel urges that since a copy of the driving

licence had been seized by the police, there was no need to issue

any notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC. This is not so.

4. As stated earlier, breach on the part of the insured has to be

proved to be willful and conscious and therefore, a notice was

required to be issued to the owner who might have produced the

licence which was shown to him by the driver at the time of his

engagement. That having not been done, the Appellant

Insurance Company cannot have any grievance if recovery

rights have not been granted.

5. The appeal therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly

dismissed.

6. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the

appellant Insurance Company.

7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2015 vk