Delhi High Court
New India Asurance Co.Ltd vs Chanda Devi & Ors on 15 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th February, 2016
+ MAC APP. 1239/2012 & CM APPL. 20404/2012
NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO.LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
CHANDA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Seerat Sualeh & Mr. Puneet,
Advs. for R-1 & R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The short issue raised by the insurance company in appeal is that
while deciding the claim petition of the first to sixth respondents herein,
registered as suit no.611/2010 (2004), the motor accident claims tribunal
(the tribunal) did not consider the plea of the insurance company (the
third respondent) to the effect that the vehicle bearing registration
no.HR-46A-8802 (the offending vehicle), which was involved in the
accident on 25.02.2004 giving rise to the cause of action for
compensation to be claimed, was put on road without a valid permit or
fitness certificate. It is pointed out that though the insurance company
had also raised the issue that the driver (seventh respondent herein) of
the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving license,
and that though notice under Order 12 Rule-8 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was served on the owner of the offending
vehicle (eighth respondent herein) on 16.05.2010 calling him upon to
produce the original permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate
of the offending vehicle but there was no response.
2. The above noted issue and contention of the insurance company
was not considered by the tribunal in the impugned judgment dated
09.08.2012. It is submission of the insurance company that the issue,
thus raised, requires to be inquired into properly and adjudicated upon
so as to address the claim of the insurance company to recovery rights
against owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Neither the seventh respondent (the driver) nor the eighth
respondent (the owner of the offending vehicle) have been appearing
over the last several dates of hearing in this appeal, even though they
had been duly served and had appeared through counsel till 04.10.2013.
The learned counsel for the claimants submits that they have no
objection to short inquiry requested by the insurance company to be held
and the issue, inter-se, the insurance company and insured (owner of the
vehicle) to be adjudicated upon.
4. Since the contentions of the insurance company were not even
mentioned or considered by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, to
the extent it was pressing for recovery rights on the ground that vehicle
in question was put on public road without a valid permit or fitness
certificate, the appeal is allowed. The issue respecting the breach of
policy conditions for the above reasons is remitted to the tribunal for
further inquiry and adjudication.
5. The parties (the appellant, seventh respondent and eight
respondent) are directed to appear before the tribunal for
aforementioned inquiry in accordance with law, on 19th April, 2016.
6. By order dated 07.12.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the tribunal
within specified period and, out of the same fifty percent (50%) was
allowed to be released to the claimant. By subsequent orders, some
further amount was allowed to be released. The balance amount lying in
deposit shall also be released by the tribunal.
7. The statutory deposit, if any, be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 15, 2016
ssc
