Delhi High Court
Action Construction Equipment ... vs Neelam Devi & Ors (Iffco Tokio ... on 9 August, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 9th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1042/2014 and CM APPL.18784/2014
ACTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate for
Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
Advocate
versus
NEELAM DEVI & ORS (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Sarin, Adv. for R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant is the owner of tractor bearing registration
No.HR-30E-9891 (the tractor) which was involved in a motor
vehicular accident near Petrol Pump, NH-11 that occurred at about
11:00 p.m. on 03.05.2010 resulting in death of Nand Lal @ Nandu,
one of the persons travelling in the trolley attached thereto. First to
fifth respondent (collectively, the claimants) are members of the
family who were dependent on the deceased Nand Lal @ Nandu.
They instituted accident claim case (Suit No.118/2014) on 23.12.2010,
impleading the driver of the tractor (sixth respondent), the appellant
and the seventh respondent herein (it being the insurer) as party
respondents, seeking compensation on the averments that the accident
had occurred due to negligence on the part of the tractor driver.
2. While contesting the said claim proceedings, the insurer set up
the plea of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on
the ground that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence and that
the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the trolley, his
risk not being covered by the insurance policy taken out in respect of
the tractor only.
3. The tribunal upheld the plea of the insurer and thus exonerated
it. It awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.11,97,000/- and called
upon the appellant and the driver to pay, they having been held jointly
and severally liable, the said amount with interest to the claimants.
4. The present appeal was filed by the registered owner of the
tractor questioning the award and also the exoneration of the insurer.
5. In terms of the interim directions given by order dated
17.11.2014, the appellant deposited Rs.2 lacs, which was the condition
for stay against the recovery. In terms of further directions, he
deposited the balance amount payable as compensation as well, the
awarded compensation having been released to the claimants in terms
of the detailed directions issued by order dated 01.09.2016 read with
order dated 06.10.2016.
6. By order dated 12.05.2017, the learned Single Judge of this
court then in seisin of the case held that the amount awarded by the
claims tribunal to the claimants (first to fifth respondents) was just,
fair and reasonable and did not warrant any interference thereby
dismissing the appeal in so far as it was directed against the said
parties.
7. The only issue which survives in the appeal thus concerns
exoneration of the insurer.
8. Even if the contention of the appellant that the driver was not
disqualified from holding a driving licence for the reason that the
evidence shows him to be in possession of a valid learner's licence for
some earlier period is accepted, the other ground of the deceased being
a gratuitous passenger set out by the tribunal as additional reason for
exoneration of the insurer cannot be wished away. Noticeably, there
was no explanation offered for the presence of the deceased as a
passenger in the trolley during the inquiry.
9. Thus, the appeal is found devoid of substance and is dismissed.
10. Since the awarded compensation has already been deposited
and has been paid to the claimants, the statutory deposit shall be
refunded to the appellant.
11. The appeal as well as pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 09, 2017
vk
