Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sh. Amit Rajput & Anr on 14 March, 2016
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 447/2014
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J. P. N. Shahi, Adv.
versus
SH. AMIT RAJPUT & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On the claim petition of the first respondent, registered as suit
no.27/2012, the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) by judgment
dated 06.03.2014 awarded compensation in the sum of `3,78,972/- with
interest in his favour for injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that
had occurred on 22.05.2004 involving truck bearing registration no.DL-
1GB-4867 (the offending vehicle) which was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the appellant/insurance company (the insurer). During
the inquiry before the tribunal, the insurer took the plea that there had been
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy since the owner of the
truck (second respondent) had allowed it to be driven by one Hansraj who
was not holding a valid and effective license. The tribunal considered this
plea in light of the evidence led thereupon and accepted the contentions of
the owner as under:-
"On the respondent no.2, Insurance Co., it is submitted that on
the date of accident the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. DL-
IGB- 4867 did not hold the effective and valid Driving License and in
this regard report of the investigator and report of Licensing
Authority, Agar has been got exhibited during evidence as Ex.R2W1/4
and R2W3/3 respectively. Hence, it is submitted that there is no
liability arise against insurance company to satisfy the claim of the
petitioner.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of respondent
no.l/owner that driver of offending vehicle i.e. Hansraj was employed
by respondent no.l after taking proper test and satisfying himself by
seeing driving license of Hansraj and as per assessment of respondent
no.l, driver Hansraj was competent driver to drive the vehicle and
was holding valid driving license. It is further stated that as per
statement of R2W1, the driving license of the driver Hansraj was fake.
It is further stated that respondent no.l was not aware of the fact that
driving license of driver was fake at the time of taken him into
employment and hence, respondent no.l has not committed any breach
of policy condition. To support his arguments, counsel for respondent
no.l cited Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs National Insurance
Company 2013 (4) TAC16 (SC) and judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in case MAC. APP. 2/05 titled as New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Mithlesh & Ors.
2. The insurance company by the appeal at hand reiterates the contention
that there had been breach of terms and conditions of the policy and, thus, it
was entitled to exonerate or at any rate granted recovery rights.
3. Having gone through the tribunal record, this court finds no substance
in the appeal. As noted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, there had
been due diligence on the part of the insured while engaging the driver on
the vehicle. He had no way of knowing that the driving license held by him
was a fake document. The ruling in National Insurance Company V.
Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, commends that the insurance company's
plea be rejected.
4. Thus, the appeal is found devoid of substance and is accordingly
dismissed.
5. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 14, 2016
ssc
