Delhi High Court
New Indai Assurance Co Ltd vs Ganga Devi & Ors on 5 April, 2016
$~1 to 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1026/2012
NEW INDAI ASSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
GANGA DEVI & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anuj Soni, Adv. for R-3
+ MAC.APP. 1028/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
DAN SINGH & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anuj Soni, Adv. for R-3
+ MAC.APP. 1030/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
KHEMA DEVI & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anuj soni, Adv. for R-3
MAC APP. No.1026/2012 & conn. Page 1 of 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. These three appeals arise out of common judgment of motor accident
claims tribunal (tribunal) rendered on 08.06.2012 whereby the accident
claim cases (suit Nos.225/08, 353/04 and 352/04) of the respective first
respondents of these three appeals were decided and while compensation
was awarded in their favour for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on 08.03.2004 involving Santro car No.DL 4CM
9206 (the offending vehicle) admittedly insured with the appellant insurance
company (insurer), it was asked to satisfy the awards, its plea for
exoneration on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle (the
second respondent) was not holding a valid or effective driving license at the
time of the accident being rejected.
2. By the appeals at hand, the insurer insists that in the facts and
circumstances proved wherein the driving license of the second respondent
had expired on 11.01.2004, it having been renewed on 17.03.2004, the
accident having occurred on 08.03.2004, its plea about breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy deserved to be accepted. It, thus, presses
for recovery rights against the owner/insured of the offending vehicle (since
deceased, now represented by his legal heirs).
3. Having heard arguments and gone through the record, it is found that
the driving license had indeed expired on 11.01.2004. The driver, however,
had applied for renewal on 01.03.2004, receipt of payment of fee whereof
was proved during the inquiry. Noticeably, Babu Lal (R3W2), an official of
the concerned transport authority also conceded during cross-examination
that the second respondent was not disqualified for driving a motor vehicle
as on the date of accident.
4. The insurer refers to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV
Act) to point out that driving license had to be renewed within a period of 30
days of its expiry. It, thus, contends that there was no valid or effective
driving license in possession of the driver and this, as per submissions,
constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy within the
meaning of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of MV Act. It refers to Malla Prakash Rao
v. Malla Janki Devi (2004) SCC 343 to contend that the owner/insured of
the offending vehicle cannot seek to be indemnified as there was a breach of
terms and conditions of the policy.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the plea of the insurer must be
rejected by reference to the following observations of the Supreme Court in
[para 110 (vi) of] the judgment in National Insurance Company V. Swaran
Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297:
"(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of
the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of
a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during
the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its
liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches
on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are
found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The
Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the
rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach"
to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of
the Act."
6. The rule of the main purpose indicates that the breach mentioned
above cannot be treated as fundamental breach of the terms and conditions
of the policy. The fact that the driver's license had expired cannot be said to
have contributed to the cause for accident.
7. In above view, the appeals must fail and are accordingly dismissed.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 05, 2016
VLD
