Delhi High Court
Krishan Pal vs National Insurance Co Ltd on 17 March, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 720/2006 with CM Nos. 11685/2006 & 11683/2006
KRISHAN PAL
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Vikas Mahajan and Mr. S S Rai,
Advs.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar and Mr.
Pankaj Seth, Advs. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 21.11.2003, the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) decided accident claim case registered as suit No.345/1997
respecting death of Joginder Singh in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on the night intervening 23rd and 24th December, 1996 involving
tempo Tata 407 HR 47-3685 (the offending vehicle), admittedly insured
against third party risk with the first respondent. The appellant admittedly is
the registered owner of the said vehicle and the person insured in its respect,
the second respondent being the driver on the relevant date at the time of the
accident.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 21.11.2003, granted
compensation in the sum of Rs.12,44,600/- with interest in favour of the
claimants. During the inquiry, the first respondent (insurer) had taken the
plea that the driving licence presented by the second respondent (driver) to
the investigating officer of the corresponding police case, purportedly issued
by the licencing authority at Meerut (UP) had been found, upon verification,
to be a fake document. On this, the insurer took the plea that there had been
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This position was
contested by the appellant and the driver on the plea that the latter held a
valid and effective driving licence (Ex.RW3/1) which had been issued by
the licensing authority at Mathura (UP) on 04.02.1994 for the period
04.02.1994 to 08.02.1997.
3. During the inquiry, the insurer, the driver and the owner of the
offending vehicle led evidence, the appellant (RW1) and the driver (RW3)
appeared as their own respective witnesses. In addition, reliance was also
placed on the evidence of Makhan Singh, Senior Clerk of office of ARTO,
Mathura (RW4). The insurer on the other hand relied on the evidence of its
official Om Prakash Sharma (RW2) and R A Tiwari, an official from RTO,
Meerut (RW5).
4. It was found by the tribunal that the driving licence purportedly issued
by the Meerut authority was fake. It was, however, also found that the
driving licence (Ex.RW3/1) issued by Mathura Authority was valid and
effective covering the period in question.
5. The tribunal concluded that there was breach of terms and conditions
of the insurance policy observing thus :
"From the evidence particularly Ex.RW3/1, it is evident that
the licence No. A-1343/MTR/94 dt.26.12.1990 was valid upto
3.2.1997 and was recovered by the police at the time of
accident. RW.3 Ajit Singh has got exhibited the copy of D.L
which shows that the said D.L. was issued by Licencing
Authority Mathura. It means that D.L which was taken into
possession by the police was issued by Mathura Licensing
Authority. From the testimony of RW.4 Makhan Singh, Sr.
Clerk it is noticed that this license was got renewed by Ajit
Singh from their authority and from his testimony it is also
evident that D.L no. 1170/Meerut/90 had been issued by RTO
Meerut which was valid upto 25.12.1993. However, the
testimony of RW5 shows that licence No. A-1170 was issued in
the name of Amrish Pal which was to expire on 26.2.1995
which means that the original D.L. was issued in the name
Amrish Pal by Meerut Licencing Authority and respondent no.1
got the D.L renewed in his name. Thus, the evidence of these
witnesses shows that he was not holding a valid licence but a
fake one.
Respondent no.2 who is the owner of the vehicle though
has stated that respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving
licence and he failed to prove that the driving license No. A-
1343/MTR/94 was issued by Meerut Authority. It means he
allowed respondent no1 to drive the vehicle on a false licence.
Thus Respondent no.3 is at liberty to recover the amount of
compensation from R. 1 and 2."
6. The owner has come in appeal challenging the view taken.
7. For the reasons set out in the application (CM No.11683/2006), the
delay is condoned. The application is disposed of.
8. Once it had been established on record that the driver was holding a
valid and effective driving licence issued by the licensing authority at
Mathura (UP), the plea of the insurer about breach of terms and conditions
of the insurance policy could not have been accepted. It may be that the
driver is guilty of procuring a fake and fabricated document showing he to
have been granted a driving licence by the licensing authority at Meerut.
That may entail consequences including those under the criminal law against
him. By this fact alone, however, it cannot inferred that the owner of the
offending vehicle was privy or party to the design of the driver in obtaining
such a fake driving licence. For purposes of the owner, the fact that the
driver actually held a valid and effective driving licence by Mathura
authority should have been sufficient to reject the plea of the insurance
policy. [United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru & Ors. (2003 3
SCC 338) and National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC
297].
9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The recovery right granted against
the appellant are set aside.
10. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 17, 2016
VLD
