Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 3 May, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03rd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 551/2013
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr. P Acharya, Adv.
versus
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Navneet Prabhakar, Adv. for R-1
to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 06.05.2013, in accident claim case (MACT
No.84/09/13), the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) awarded
compensation in the sum of `6,58,553/- with interest in favour of the
claimants (first to third respondents) on account of death of Rajni in motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 06.06.2009 due to negligent driving
of truck bearing No.HR 69A 8091 (offending vehicle) which was admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company
(insurer) for the period in question. In the claim case, Sombir (fourth
respondent) and Chhote Lal (fifth respondent) were also impleaded as party
respondents on the averments that they are the driver and owner respectively
of the offending vehicle. Though by their written statements they denied the
case of the claimants taking the position that the accident had occurred due
to negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider, on the pillion of which the
deceased was travelling, no evidence was led by them at the inquiry.
2. The insurance company contested by leading evidence through
Kulwant Singh (R3W1), clerk from the office of Road Transport Authority
(RTA), Sonepat, Haryana to prove copy of the permit (Ex.R3W1/A) in
respect of the offending vehicle). The said document proved by the witness.
(examined by the insurer) would show that the vehicle did not have a valid
permit for Delhi beyond 01.11.2008. On this, the insurer pleaded before the
tribunal that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy.
3. The tribunal, however, side-stepped the issue by observing vaguely
that the insurance company did not have any statutory defence to offer and,
thus, held it liable to satisfy the award.
4. By the appeal at hand, the insurance company reiterates its case about
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The owner and
driver of the offending vehicle (fourth and fifth respondents) in spite of
notice, though having appeared on some of the dates, have not appeared
today either in person or their counsel to make any submissions. No
document has been filed till date on their behalf to show in any manner that
the offending vehicle had a valid permit for Delhi for the above date.
5. From the above facts and circumstances, the insurance company has
brought home its case about breach of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and deserves to be granted recovery rights against the fourth and fifth
respondents. The same are hereby granted. The insurance company may
take out appropriate proceedings before the tribunal to enforce the said
recovery rights.
6. By order dated 02.07.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the
Registrar General from which 80% was allowed to be released to the
claimants. The balance kept in deposit shall also now be released to the
claimants in terms of above directions.
7. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 03, 2016
VLD
