Delhi High Court
Davinder Kumar Arora vs Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. on 1 April, 2016
$~R-45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 1st April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 436/2007
DAVINDER KUMAR ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
RAMESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 18.11.2006, the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) while deciding the accident claim case (suit No.131/2005)
preferred by the first to fourth respondents herein (the claimants) on
29.08.2005 awarded compensation in the sum of ₹5,54,000/- on account of
death of Ram Ratan in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
26.06.2005 involving motor vehicle described as bus bearing No.DL 1PB
4949 (offending vehicle) admittedly insured against third party risk with the
sixth respondent herein (the insurer) and held that there was a breach of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending
vehicle Bhajan Singh (the fifth respondent herein) was not holding a valid
badge issued by the motor licensing officer. On this basis, while the insurer
was directed to satisfy the award, it was granted right to recover the amount
thus paid, as compensation from the appellant (the registered owner of the
bus). It is the said recovery right which is challenged through the appeal at
hand.
2. By order dated 24.07.2007, notice was issued restricted to the sixth
respondent (the insurer), with stay against operation of the impugned order.
The appeal was admitted by order dated 13.05.2009 and has remained
pending ever since. When the matter was called out earlier no one appeared
for either side. The situation remains same even today.
3. On perusal, it is found that the insurer had also raised the plea that the
driving license of the fifth respondent had been cancelled on 31.12.2005.
This, however, will not be of any effect inasmuch as the driving license was
valid for the period 13.01.2004 to 12.01.2007 which covers the date of
accident. The cancellation of the driving license later will be
inconsequential.
4. It is correct that in terms of the rules in force under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the driver of a commercial vehicle of such nature as is
the case at hand is required to carry a badge issued by the licensing authority
authorizing him to be in such capacity. But while non-possession of a badge
may undoubtedly entail consequences under the said legislation or rules
framed thereunder, it can hardly be termed as a breach which was
fundamental to the terms and conditions of the policy so as to support plea
of insurer for exoneration (National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh
(2004) 3 SCC 297).
5. In above view, the appeal must be allowed. It is held that the insurer
(sixth respondent) was liable to indemnify the appellant under the insurance
policy taken out by him in respect of the offending vehicle for the period in
question. The directions for recovery rights are set aside.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 01, 2016
VLD
