Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Karan Singh & Ors on 18 January, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th January, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 436/2012 & CM Appl. 7491/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Seema Gulati, Adv.
versus
KARAN SINGH & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikramjit Saini, Adv.for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By the judgment dated 04.01.2012, the motor accident claims
tribunal ("the tribunal") allowed the petition of the first respondent
herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("the MV
Act") registered as suit no.447/10 awarding the compensation in the sum
of Rs.522714/- with interest on account of injuries suffered by him in
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 28.05.2008. The offending
vehicle was driven at the relevant date and time by the second
respondent herein and was owned by the third respondent herein. The
insurance company contested, inter-alia, on the ground that its liability
would be subject to it being proved that at the time of the accident, the
driver was holding a valid driving license. The tribunal, however,
directed the insurance company (the appellant) to pay the awarded
compensation observing, inter-alia, (para no.10) that there was no
dispute with regard to the driving licence or the violation of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the owner and the driver
were jointly and severally liable and the insurance company was liable
to indemnify the claim.
2. Along with the appeal the insurance company has submitted an
application under Order 41 Rule-27 CPC, CM APPL. No. 7491/2012
(additional evidence) seeking opportunity to lead evidence, inter-alia,
stating that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid
driving licence information in which regard had been duly verified by its
investigator.
3. Inspite of notice, neither the owner nor the driver have appeared
at the hearing to contest the appeal or the application at hand. It be
noted that the owner had earlier appeared through counsel on some of
the dates of hearing of this appeal.
4. In the appeal, the insurance company had also, inter-alia,
questioned the computation of the compensation awarded but the
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted today that appeal is
pressed only to claim recovery rights from the owner.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, the insurance company is
obliged to pay entire awarded amount to the claimant in terms of the
impugned judgment/award. The question as to whether the insurance
company is right in contending that there was breach of the terms of
insurance policy because driver did not have a valid driving licence has
remained unaddressed. It needs to be inquired into. In terms of the
order dated 23.03.2012, the insurance company is stated to have
deposited entire amount, out of which 50% was released and the balance
held back in fixed deposit receipt in favour of the claimants. The said
balance amount shall also be released by the Registrar General to the
claimants in terms of the impugned judgment/award.
6. The question relating to the recovery rights of the insurance
company is remanded to the tribunal for limited inquiry. Needless to
add, the prime question to be adjudicated upon in the said inquiry would
be as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid
driving licence on the date of the accident and if not as to whether this
amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. If the
answer to both questions is in favour of the contention of the appellant
(insurer), it shall be granted recovery rights against the owner.
7. The insurer and the registered owner of the vehicle are directed to
appear before the tribunal for aforementioned purposes on 21st March,
2016.
8. The appeal is disposed of with above observations/directions.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 18, 2016
ssc
