Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Amir Khan on 17 May, 2016
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 307/2013 with CM no.5484/2013 (stay)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L. K. Tyagi, Adv.
versus
AMIR KHAN ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 19.12.2012, passed in an accident claim case (suit
no.229/2012) of the first respondent (the claimant), the appellant/insurance
company (the insurer) has been burdened with liability to pay the
compensation to the latter in the sum of `78,968/- with interest for the
injuries suffered by him due to negligent driving of a motor vehicle
described as motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-7SSS-5974 (the
offending vehicle) on 08.03.2012. Admittedly, on the date of accident the
offending vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant company.
2. It is admitted case of the appellant that the offending vehicle was
subject to comprehensive insurance taken out by its erstwhile registered
owner from the appellant company. It was stolen from the possession of the
said earlier owner on 13.09.2005 and on the own-damage claim lodged by
him, the compensation due on account of theft was paid by the appellant to
him on 11.04.2007 whereafter the title to the offending vehicle was
transferred in its name, it consequently having became its registered owner.
3. The offending vehicle was stolen in 2005 and remained unrecovered
on 08.03.2012. The said vehicle was involved in the accident giving rise to
the cause of action in favour of the first respondent, the identity of the
person driving at that point of time still not having been discovered. The
claim case of the first respondent, thus, was filed and directed against the
appellant company on the plea that it is the registered owner of the said
vehicle and, therefore, liable to pay the compensation. The claim was
resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the actual physical
possession of the vehicle was never received by it and, thus, the person who
was driving it at the time of accident could not said to be a person authorized
by the registered owner.
4. In appeal, the insurance company presses in aid the view taken by the
Supreme Court in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa vs. C. S. Suri, (2010) 8
SCC 620 and by learned single judges of High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad and High Court of Judicature at Madras in cases reported as State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Deveshwar Prasad, 1983 ACJ 646 and New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Selvarajamani and Ors., 1998 ACJ 547.
5. This court has considered the submission made but finds no merit in
the appeal. In sharp contrast of three cases cited at bar where the accident
had occurred on the close heels of the theft of the vehicle, clearly by a
person not authorized by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, in
case at hand, the appellant had become the registered owner of the offending
vehicle admittedly on 11.04.2007. It was well within its knowledge that the
vehicle had been stolen and still not been recovered and, thus, there was all
likelihood that it was in use and control of the thief or a person to whom the
thief may have transferred it. Yet, the appellant/insurance company, having
acquired title over the offending vehicle, took no steps to report the fact to
registering authority or to get the registration of the offending vehicle
cancelled or suspended in terms of Sections 48(6), 53 and 62 of the M.V.
Act. The continuance of the ownership of the insurance company in the
vehicle, thus, carried with it a responsibility for its use or abuse. In these
circumstances, the insurance company cannot get away on the plea that the
person who was driving the vehicle had no authority.
6. The appeal (with application) is, thus, dismissed.
7. The appellant is directed to satisfy the award by requisite deposit with
the tribunal. The statutory deposit shall be refunded by the registry only
after confirmation that the award has been satisfied.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 17, 2016
ssc
