Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Sandeep Khatri And Ors on 20 January, 2016
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20th January, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 469/2013 & CM No.8345/2013
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for appellant
versus
SANDEEP KHATRI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for
claimant
Ms. Sarita Dixit, Adv. for Mahavir
Prasad Bansal (owner)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV
Act") has been taken out by the insurance company against the judgment
dated 27.11.2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal")
in MACT case No.716/2010 submitted by Sandeep Khatri (first
respondent herein) on account of self injury in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred at about 9 PM on 31.03.2010 in the area of Palla More Red
Light Near Puliya, G T Karnal Road, Alipur involving truck bearing
No.HR 55F-4550 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle").
2. It was stated that the offending vehicle was driven in a
rash/negligent manner by Bablu Yadav and that it was owned by Mahavir
Prasad Bansal, the said persons having been impleaded as first and
second respondent before the Tribunal. The offending vehicle was
admittedly insured for the relevant period with the appellant, which was
impleaded as the third respondent in the claim petition. The petition was
allowed by judgment dated 27.11.2012 and compensation in the sum of
Rs.1,51,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest at 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition (05.05.2010) till
realisation.
3. The insurance company, through the appeal at hand, has raised the
contention that the offending vehicle was driven by the driver (Bablu
Yadav) without holding a valid and effective driving licence and, thus,
there was a breach of the policy conditions and, therefore, the insurance
company ought to have been given recovery rights against the owner. An
application has been submitted by the appellant company seeking
opportunity to produce evidence in support of the aforementioned claim.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant company fairly submitted
that no relief against the claimant is pressed in the appeal at hand and
further that the amount payable in terms of the impugned award has
already been deposited and part released to the claimant in terms of the
earlier orders of this Court. He also submitted that the appellant company
has no objection to the balance also to be released to the claimant and
presses the appeal only for opportunity to prove that there was a breach of
the policy condition for which the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal
for inquiry.
5. The claimant submitted no objection to the prayer of the insurer
and presses only for release of the compensation. The learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent (the owner) submitted that the driver
(the second respondent) was holding a valid driving licence and, thus,
there was no breach of the policy condition. She agreed that the matter
arising out of the contention raised by the insurance company may be
remanded, for limited inquiry to the Tribunal and in case the finding
recorded is to the effect that there was a breach of policy condition, the
Tribunal may be empowered to give the necessary directions for recovery
rights to be granted to the insurance company.
6. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the joint
prayer made by all sides is allowed. The balance amount lying with the
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi shall be released to the
claimants in terms of the impugned judgment.
7. The issue arising out of contention of the insurance company that
the driver was not holding a valid driving licence is remanded for inquiry
to the Tribunal. In case the Tribunal concludes that there was a breach of
policy condition, it shall issue necessary directions for granting recovery
rights to the insurance company against the owner. For the said limited
purpose, the parties i.e. the insurance company and the owner shall
appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings in accordance with law
on 22.03.2016.
8. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
9. The trial court record, if requisitioned, be presently returned with a
copy of this judgment.
10. The appeal of the insurance company stands disposed of with
above observations/directions.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 20, 2016/VLD
