Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Master Akash Mittal & Ors. on 10 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: April 10, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 645/2013
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate
versus
MASTER AKASH MITTAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
Appellant is the Insurer of Tata Qualis No. HR 55 CT 1699 which
was involved in a road accident on 23rd October, 2006 resulting in injury
to Master Akash Mittal, in whose claim petition, impugned Award of 10th
May, 2013 has been rendered. Compensation of `1,52,474/- with interest
@ 9% per annum has been awarded to respondent-Claimant by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (North-II), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal).
Since the challenge to impugned Award is not on quantum of
compensation granted but is on the liability aspect, therefore, the facts as
noted in impugned Award need not be adverted to. Suffice to note that
respondent No.2 herein is the owner of Tata Qualis in question and
respondent No.3 is its driver. As per order-sheet of 17th November, 2012,
appellant-Insurer had asserted before the Tribunal that there was breach
of insurance policy in respect of driving licence of driver of vehicle in
question. However, for reasons best known, no evidence was led by
appellant-Insurer before the Tribunal.
In this appeal, application for stay was dismissed, but appellant
was allowed vide order of 14th February, 2014 to lead additional
evidence. The additional evidence led by appellant comprises of
deposition of its Administrative Officer (Legal) regarding the driving
licence in question being not issued by concerned Licencing Authority.
Appellant by way of additional evidence has also got examined
concerned official from the Licencing Authority regarding the driving
licence in question being issued to one Virender Kumar S/o Bhag Chand
and not to respondent No.3-purported driver of vehicle in question. It is
relevant to note that the evidence of appellant's Administrative Officer
(AW-1) and of the official (AW-2) from the concerned Licencing
Authority remains unrebutted, as despite service, respondents-owner and
driver of vehicle in question have chosen not to contest this appeal. It is
so evident from the order of 6th January, 2014. It is also relevant to note
that respondents-driver and owner of vehicle in question had not led any
evidence before the Tribunal as well.
With the assistance of learned counsel for appellant-Insurer,
impugned Award, additional evidence and trial court record have been
perused. The precise submission of appellant's counsel is that in view of
additional evidence led, it stands proved that the driving licence in
question, which was seized in the FIR case regarding this accident, does
not belong to respondent No.3-purported driver of vehicle in question and
since no evidence has been led by owner and driver of vehicle in
question, therefore, appellant ought to be granted recovery rights qua the
driver and owner of vehicle in question. as they had not led any evidence.
Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellant-Insurer.
In the face of additional evidence, this Court finds that the vehicle
in question was driven by respondent No.3, who was not holding a valid
driving licence, and so recovery rights ought to be granted to appellant-
Insurer qua respondents No. 2 & 3.
In light of aforesaid, impugned Award is modified to the extent of
granting recovery rights to appellant-Insurer qua respondents No.2 & 3,
who are the owner and driver of vehicle in question.
With aforesaid modification, this appeal is disposed of.
Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant as per Rules.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 10, 2017
s
