Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nitin Sharma & Ors on 27 May, 2015
Author: Jayant Nath
$~A-
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.05.2015
+ MAC APP. No. 231/2007
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate.
versus
NITIN SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
+ MAC APP. No. 232/2007
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate.
versus
JALIKA KHATOON & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate for
R-1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present appeals are filed by the appellant Insurance Company
seeking to impugn the Award dated 04.01.2007.
2. The brief facts which are common to filing of the claim petitions are
that on 24.02.1999, the deceased, namely, Md.Shamim (in MAC
APP.232/2007) was going by a TSR along with two other persons from
Shantivan towards Delhi Gate. Near Rajghat, the offending truck said to be
driven in a rash and negligent manner jumped the red light and hit the TSR in
which the deceased along with the two other persons was travelling. Apart
from this accident, one Nitin Sharma was going on his two wheeler scooter.
The said truck while illegally jumping the red light also hit the scooter
because of which the said Nitin Sharma fell down. The case of Nitin Sharma
is the subject matter of MAC APP.231/2007.
3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal granted a total
compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the case of the deceased Md.Shamim. In
the petition filed by Nitin Sharma, a compensation for the sum of
Rs.1,68,000/- was awarded. The appellant was directed to pay but was
permitted to recover it from Sandeep Motors Pvt. Ltd.
4. The basic controversy raised here is as to whether the appellant
Insurance Company is liable for the compensation. The dispute is that the
truck was originally manufactured by M/s Ashok Leyland Company and it
was said to have been transferred/sold to its dealer respondent No.8-
M/s.Sandeep Motors. The said M/s.Sandeep Motors is said to have sold the
vehicle to respondent No.9-M/s JRM Steels Private Limited. It appears that
before the vehicle could actually be delivered at the company of respondent
No.9, it met with an accident. It is the contention of the appellant that the
insurance policy issued in the name of respondent No.9 was neither delivered
nor title of the vehicle was passed in favour of respondent No.9. In fact, as
the vehicle was not delivered, respondent No.9 got the insurance policy
cancelled and took a refund of its policy. Hence, it is urged that the Award is
erroneous as it held that the cover note issued by the appellant was misused
and that the appellant insurance company has not taken due care to prevent
the misuse. The Tribunal directed that that appellant Insurance Company
shall pay the compensation to the victims and shall then have a right to
recover the same from M/s.Sandeep Motors.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has reiterated that no title
was passed on to respondent No.9, the insurance policy was not effective.
She also points out that the cover note states DOD i.e. date of delivery. She
further submits that the delivery was not affected. In fact later on, on
17.08.1999 respondent No.8 sold the vehicle to one M/s Jawala Carbonic Pvt.
Ltd. which clearly indicates that the title had never passed on to respondent
No.9.
6. R5W1 Sh. Rajiv Kumar who came from the office of Registration
Authority has stated that the vehicle is registered in the name of M/s Jawala
Carbonics Pvt. Ltd. and was sold by M/s.Sandeep Motors, respondent No.8 to
the said M/s Jawala Carbonics Pvt. Ltd. He further stated that the original
invoice dated 17.08.1999 regarding sale of the said vehicle by respondent No.
8 to M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. is also on record. The sale certificate is
also on record showing sale by M/s Sandeep Motors to M/s Jawala Carbonic
Pvt. Ltd. dated 17.08.1999. As per the record, there is no temporary
registration certificate issued.
7. R3W/1 Sh. Sarwan Kumar from Ashok Leyland Company in his
cross-examination has confirmed that no vehicle can ply on road without a
valid insurance. He has also said that a temporary registration certificate
cannot be issued unless the vehicle is insured. He has further said that the
delivery order is not issued unless all documents are complete in all respect
i.e. the vehicle must be insured prior to issuance of delivery order. In the
present case, he confirms that a temporary registration certificate was issued
in the name of M/s JRM Steels Pvt. Ltd. and so was the insurance cover note.
8. RW4/1-Sh. Surender Kumar, Development Officer of the appellant
Insurance Company also confirms that a temporary RC has been registered in
the name of M/s. JRM Steels Pvt. Ltd. He has also confirmed that there were
five vehicles which were to be delivered to M/s. JRM Steels Pvt. Ltd. and
five different insurance covers were taken. As the 5th vehicle was not
delivered, M/s JRM Steels Pvt. Ltd. got the cover note cancelled and the
premium was refunded. He has also confirmed in his cross that the Insurance
Company does not see the RC in case of new vehicles when they are insured.
9. What follows from the above facts is that respondent No.8 appears to
have been using the temporary RC and also the insurance cover note issued
by the appellant, to take delivery of the vehicle from M/s Ashok Leyland Pvt.
Ltd. This was done as from the depot of Ashok Leyland the vehicle was to be
delivered to the office of M/s JRM Steels Pvt. Ltd. and en route it appears
that the accident has taken place.
10. Keeping in view these facts, it is obvious that the appellant were
negligent. The appellant have permitted misuse of the cover note in this
manner. In the light of these facts, there are no reasons to differ with the
directions passed in the Award. Recovery rights have been given to the
appellant. Both the appeals are without any merit and are dismissed.
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2015
rb
