Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Gurdayal Singh & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2314 Del

$~48

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 18th March, 2015
+        MAC.APP. 223/2011

         ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD         ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. for
                               Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

                             versus

         GURDAYAL SINGH & ORS                              ..... Respondents
                     Through: Nemo.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The appeal arise out of the judgment dated 21.01.2011 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby

compensation of Rs.4,41,336/- was awarded in favour of Respondents

no.3 to 8 for the death of Raj Dev, who suffered fatal injuries in a

motor vehicular accident which occurred on 06.06.2014.

2. By virtue of an appeal, the Appellant seeks exoneration or in the

alternative, right to recover the compensation from the insured on the

ground that the driving licence held by the driver (Respondent no.2

herein) was fake.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that a notice under

Order XII Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908(Ex.R3W1/1) was

served upon the owner (Respondent no.1). However, he failed to

produce any driving licence and, therefore, an adverse inference ought

to have been drawn against him. It is urged that had the owner been in

possession of genuine driving licence or had he seen the same with the

driver, he would have definitely come forward to produce the same or

would have an explanation in this regard.

4. Admittedly, the copy of the driving licence was available on the Trial

Court record. Unless the driving licence was proved to be fake, the

same will be considered to be genuine.

5. The Appellant failed to prove that the driving licence held by the

driver was found to be fake, by leading any evidence. An application

for additional evidence was moved by the Appellant being CM

APPL.5098/2011 and the same came to be dismissed by the learned

Predecessor vide order dated 06.09.2013.

6. Since the Appellant failed to establish that the driving licence held by

the driver was fake, it cannot be said that the Appellant has proved

breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy let alone

willful breach. The Claims Tribunal therefore, rightly declined to

grant any recovery rights to the Appellant.

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

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

9. Statutory amount, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 18, 2015 vk