Delhi High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. ... vs Subhash Chand & Ors on 18 May, 2016
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:18th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 788/2014
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Suman Bagga and Mr.Pankaj
Gupta, Advs.
versus
SUBHASH CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The first respondent (claimant) suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 08.10.2011 statedly involving negligent driving of
a skoda car bearing registration No. DL-2-FFF-0021 (the offending vehicle)
admittedly owned by third respondent, it having been driven at the relevant
point of time by the second respondent. The claimant instituted accident
claim petition (Suit No. 80/2012) on 07.02.2012 in the wake of detailed
accident report (DAR) submitted by the police on the basis of the evidence
gathered during investigation of first information report (FIR) No. 215/2011
registered with police station Chitaranjan park respecting the said incident.
In the said proceedings, the appellant insurance company (the insurer) was
impleaded as a party, it having admittedly issued a third party risk insurance
policy for the period in question.
2. During the inquiry before the Tribunal, the insurer took the plea that
second respondent was holding a learner's licence at the time of the accident
which had been seized during the investigation, as reported by the
investigating police officer in detailed accident report (DAR). The insurer,
inter alia, on the basis of this fact, prayed for exoneration.
3. The Tribunal whilst upholding the case of the claimant about
negligent driving having led to injuries, awarded compensation in the sum of
Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest in his favour directing the insurer to pay,
rejecting its plea about breach of terms and conditions of the policy on the
ground that learner's licence was valid and effective licence. It appears that
the insurance company had also pointed out that the vehicle was being used
by a person holding learner's licence without the caution sign in the form of
label of "L" affixed on the vehicle. This, in view of the Tribunal, was
insufficient to allow the insurer to avoid its liability.
4. The insurance company by the appeal at hand reiterates its case that it
having been proved, inter alia, by the evidence of Shyama Charan Vats
(R3W1), Assistant manager (Legal) and also by the report of the police in
DAR that the second respondent was holding only a learner's licence, its
plea about breach of terms and conditions of the policy should have been
accepted.
5. The appeal has been filed after elapse of limitation period and so with
application for condonation of delay (CM No.14250/2014). For the reasons
stated in the application, the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
6. It is noted that the correctness of the evidence of R3W1 was not
challenged. The said evidence read with DAR clearly brought home the fact
that the second respondent was holding only a learner's licence. Though in
their response the second and third respondent had submitted that the second
respondent was accompanied by a person who was holding a valid driving
licence, no evidence to prove the said fact was adduced. In absence of any
such evidence, the plea cannot be accepted.
7. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 declares that no person
shall drive motor vehicle in public place unless he holds an effective driving
licence issued to him authorising him to drive a vehicle. Rule 3 of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 declares that the provisions contained in
Section 3(1) shall not apply to a person while receiving instruction or
gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test
of competence to drive so long as such person is holder of an effective
learner's licence and such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, he (such instructor) sitting in
such a position as to control or stop the vehicle.
8. In the absence of any evidence showing the presence of any other
person with the second respondent who may have been holding a valid or
effective driving licence, the plea of the insurer about the breach of terms
and conditions of the insurance company must be accepted.
9. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The finding rejecting the contentions of
insurer to above effect as rejected by the Tribunal is set aside. The
insurance company is granted recovery rights against the owner and driver
i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3. For such purpose, it may take out appropriate
proceedings before the tribunal.
10. Statutory amount, if any, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 18, 2016
mr
