Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dhan Laxmi & Ors. on 10 March, 2015
$-32 to 36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10th March, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 347/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
DHAN LAXMI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
+ MAC.APP. 361/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
NAGRAJ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
+ MAC.APP. 362/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
P. NAGAMMAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
MAC. APP.347/2007, 361/2007, 362/2007, 363/2007 & 364/2007 Page 1 of 6
+ MAC.APP. 363/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
DHAN LAXMI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
+ MAC.APP. 364/2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
DHAN LAXMI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These five appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
27.04.2007 whereby compensation was awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) to the legal
heirs of two deceased and three injured persons.
2. As per the case set up before the Claims Tribunal, on
05.11.1999 at about 4:40 a.m., deceased A. Raju and Vinayaki
and three injured Dhan Laxmi, P. Nagammal and Nagaraj were
travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing no.DL-2CG-9849 from Delhi
to Varanasi. When the Tata Sumo reached near Gole Dhaba
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Majhola, Muradabad, a
truck bearing no.HR-37-5607 was found to be going ahead in a
zigzag manner. The driver of the truck is claimed to have
applied sudden break, as a result of which the driver of Tata
Sumo dashed the Tata Sumo against the rear portion of the
truck.
3. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident took place because of the composite negligence of the
drivers of the two vehicles. The Claims Tribunal thereafter
proceeded to award the compensation and made the Appellant
National Insurance Co. Ltd. liable to pay the compensation.
Incidentally, National Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of the
truck as well as the Tata Sumo. Thus, there was no dispute with
regard to the primary liability of the insurer to pay the
compensation.
4. In the instant appeals, a short submission has been raised by the
Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. with regard to its liability
in respect of the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck
bearing no.HR-37-5607 which was owned by Amarjeet Kaur.
5. The learned counsel for the Appellant urges that the Insurance
Company would not dispute the quantum of compensation in
any of the appeals. It only seeks recovery rights in respect of
50% of the compensation paid on behalf of the insured
Amarjeet Kaur, who was the owner of the truck bearing no.HR-
37-5607 from him.
6. The learned counsel for the Appellant urges that as per the FIR
and the case set up before the Claims Tribunal, one Sukha
Singh was the driver of the truck bearing no.HR-37-5607 at the
time of the accident. His driving licence was got verified by the
Appellant Insurance Company and it was found to be fake. It is
urged by the learned counsel that on verification of driving
licence no.S 1984/KPD/89, it was found that the licence was
issued in favour of one R.Singh, r/o Village Rura, Kanpur Dehat
on 03.03.1989 for a medium motor vehicle. On the basis of the
said report, the learned counsel urges that the Appellant proved
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on
the part of the insured and therefore, the Appellant is entitled to
recover the compensation amounts paid from Amarjeet Kaur,
Respondent no.4 herein. The learned counsel for the Appellant
refers to page no.209 of the Trial Court record. This document
appears to be a photocopy of national permit no.61/NP/97 in
respect of vehicle no. HR-37-5607. On this very page, there is a
photocopy of a driving licence as well. Neither the name nor
the number of the driving licence is legible. The Appellant did
not issue any notice to Respondent Amarjeet Kaur to produce
the driving licence of the driver Sukha Singh. It is well settled
that in order to avoid the payment under the insurance policy or
seek recovery rights, the insurer is bound to prove that the
breach was conscious and willful on the part of the
owner/insured. Since no notice was given by the Appellant to
the owner to produce the driving licence, it cannot be said that
there was any willful or conscious breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the insured.
Moreover, the alleged copy of the driving licence which is
available on record is completely illegible cannot be said to be
the driving licence of the driver Sukha Singh of the truck. It is
also not known as to what is the source of the alleged
photocopy.
7. The appeals therefore have to fail; the same are accordingly
dismissed.
8. Pending applications stand disposed of.
9. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2015
pst
