Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Jyoti & Ors on 2 March, 2016
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02nd March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1087/2011 & CM APPL. 21838/2011, 21840/2011
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya & Mr. Sameer
Nandwani, Advs.
versus
JYOTI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Bandhu, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):s
1. The insurance company by this appeal challenges the direction of the
motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) by judgment dated 30.04.2011
in MACT case no.173/2010/2008 to pay compensation in the sum of
`15,10,000/- with interest to the first to fifth respondents herein (the
claimants) on account of death of Vinod Kumar in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred at 10:25 PM on 10.11.2007 involving Tavera
(Chevrolet) car bearing registration no.HR-55FT-8006 (the offending
vehicle) concededly insured with it against third party risk. The grievance
of the insurance company is that its plea of breach of terms and conditions
of the insurance policy was wrongly rejected even though it had shown that
the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake
document. By the appeal at hand it seeks exoneration or in the alternative,
presses for recovery rights.
2. The tribunal has dealt with the above issue in the impugned judgment
as under:-
"Respondent no. 3 insurance company examined one witness
R3W1 who stated that respondent no. 2 was having fake driving
license. He relied upon the report dated 25-3-2008 of some
investigator Sh. Amit Verma Ex. R3W1/A in this regard. However
respondent no. 3 neither examined that investigator who had given
this report nor examined any witness from the concerned licensing
authority which purportedly issued the license. This witness R3W1
had not accompanied the investigator and even otherwise also if the
cross examination of this witness is read along with the report of
investigator, then it reveals that investigator appears to have not
properly got the correct license verified from the concerned authority.
The number of correct driving license of the respondent no. 2 is
6067/HSD as per seizure memo Ex. R3W1/P-1 whereas report of
investigator Ex. R3W1/A shows that driving license bearing no.
6067/BSD was got verified. R3W1 tried to explain in his cross
examination that there is a typing mistake in the report but to
substantiate it, respondent no. 3 has failed to examine the concerned
investigator. Further the report of investigator shows that nothing in
writing was obtained from the concerned licensing authority that
driving license was fake. Even it is not the case of investigator that he
had personally inspected the record of the licensing authority. It is
also not disclosed which official of the licensing authority had
informed the investigator that driving license was not genuine. In
such situation, it is held that respondent no. 3 has failed to prove that
driving license of the respondent no. 2 was fake or forged.
Respondent no. 3 despite receipt of report about three years back did
not took any steps to get the criminal case registered against the
respondent no. 2 which fact also goes against it. Except this defence,
there is no other ground available to the insurance company to
oppose this petition. Respondent no. 3 has not brought on record any
other evidence to point out that it is not liable to pay compensation
amount as assessed by the court or any term or condition of the
Insurance policy was breached by the insured or it has any limited
liability. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy,
respondent no. 3 alone becomes entitled to pay entire compensation
amount."
3. It is the contention of the insurance company that even though it had
moved application seeking further opportunity for evidence, it was wrongly
closed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the insurance company, this
court finds no substance in the appeal. The observation of the tribunal in the
aforequoted paragraph from the impugned judgment shows that the
insurance company had not led any evidence whatsoever to even prima-facie
show that the driving licence was a fake document. Having gone through
the proceedings recorded by the tribunal, it is noted that the insurance
company has not been diligent in prosecuting its defence during the inquiry.
Inspite of sufficient opportunity having been granted, proper evidence was
not adduced.
5. In above facts and circumstances, the appeal is found devoid of
substance and it is liable to be dismissed.
6. By order dated 05.12.2011, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Rohini Courts
branch within the period specified. The amount deposited in terms of the
said direction would be released to the claimants by the tribunal in terms of
the impugned judgment. If there is default or shortfall, the claimants are at
liberty to take out appropriate execution proceedings to recover through the
tribunal.
7. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 02, 2016
ssc
