Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Sehzee & Ors. on 10 August, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10th August, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 519/2017
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv.
versus
SEHZEE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant is concededly the insurer of motor vehicle
bearing registration no. HP 19 8902 which was involved in a collision
with another motor vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 14GA 8569 at
about 7 p.m. on 26.06.2012 resulting in death of Umardeen giving rise
to cause of action for accident claim case (MACT No. 275/2012)
instituted by first to ninth respondents (collectively the claimants). It
may be added that the owner and insurer of the other vehicle were also
impleaded as parties to the said case.
2. The tribunal, by judgment dated 05.04.2017, which is impugned
by the appeal at hand, held a case for compensation to be made out
and awarded it in the sum of Rs. 14,73,400/- fastening the
responsibility on the appellant. The appellant while putting in contest
had taken the plea of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy on the ground that the driving licence of the twelfth respondent
(driver) was fake. Evidence in this regard was led by both sides with
appellant examining Tribhuwan Mishra (R5W1), an official from the
office of Regional Transport Office, Kanpur, UP and the said twelfth
respondent and thirteenth respondent, he being the owner (insured) of
the concerned vehicle, appearing as witnesses on their part. The
tribunal, however, rejected the contention of the insurance company
calling it upon to satisfy the award. It is the said view which is sought
to be assailed by the appeal at hand.
3. Reliance is placed on the testimony of R5W1 primarily showing
that in respect of the driving license presented by the twelfth
respondent, there was no license fee shown deposited with the
concerned RTO office. The tribunal set out its reasons for rejecting
the plea as under:
"Whether or not requisite fee payment is mentioned in the
cash payment register is none of the concern of the
person like the defendant no.3 and same is solely and
exclusively internal matter of the Office of ARTO,
Farukhabad, UP. Once it is found that DL produced by
the defendant no.5 is having the same contents are there
in the corresponding record of the ARTO, DL of
defendant no.5 cannot be said to be not legal on account
of alleged non-payment of requisite licence fee inasmuch
as mentioning or non-mentioning of such payment in the
cash payment register is exclusively the internal matter
of ARTO and defendant no.3 can be said to be having no
role in this regard. No fault can be attributed to
defendant no.3 it details of payment of requisite license
fee are not there in the payment of cash register.
Depositions made by RW-3 Balbir Chand and RW-4
Ashwani Kumar in their cross-examination do not in any
way help the defendant no.5 to avoid its liability under
the insurance policy. Thus, DL of defendant no.5 cannot
be said to be not effective and not valid."
4. The above view is in sync with the view taken by this Court in a
similar fact situation in another appeal titled Yashpal Singh vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., MAC Appeal No. 761/2016
decided on 03.08.2017 with the following observations:-
"5. If the document held by the second respondent bears
proper endorsement confirming it to have been issued as
a driving licence which was valid for the period in
question, the possibility of the licence fee having been
subjected to defalcation by the concerned clerk of the
Transport Authority cannot be used to hold the licence
invalid. That will not only be unfair but also most
unjust".
5. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.
6. The appellant has already deposited the award amount with upto
date interest in terms of order dated 31.05.2017 with the tribunal. The
said amount shall now be released to the claimants in terms of the
impugned judgment.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of with these observations.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 10, 2017
nk
