Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Deepa And Ors on 11 August, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1042/2016 and CM 45519/2016
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
DEEPA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Azad Ali, Adv. for R-7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (suit no.367/2016), instituted by first
to fifth respondents (collectively, the claimants), the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment dated 05.09.2016, awarded
compensation in their favour on account of death of Jitendra Kumar in
a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 18.02.2014 due to
negligent driving of a truck bearing registration no.RJ-06-GA-6308,
which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the
appellant insurance company (insurer), the liability having been
fastened upon it (insurer).
2. The appeal is pressed only to seek recovery rights against the
insured (seventh respondent), it admittedly being the registered owner
of the offending vehicle, on the ground that the driver (sixth
respondent) was not holding a valid or effective driving licence on the
date of the accident. This plea is sought to be substantiated by a report
dated 14.10.2016 of investigator to the effect that the sixth respondent
held a valid and effective driving licence for the vehicle in question
but the same had expired on 28.12.2013, the accident having occurred
later on 18.02.2014, for which purposes application under Order 41
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is also moved for
opportunity to lead additional evidence.
3. Even if the report to above effect were to be formally
introduced in evidence, it would not make any headway for the
appellant. The fact remains that it cannot be disputed that the driver
held a valid and effective driving licence till 28.12.2013. It does
appear that the licence had expired and it may be presumed that there
was no renewal so as to cover its validity for the date of accident
(18.02.2014). But, this fact, by itself, cannot mean that a case of
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been
properly made out. The rule of main purpose as envisaged in National
Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, will have to
be borne in mind. The fact that the driver held a valid and effective
driving licence just less than two months prior to the date of the
accident shows that he possessed the necessary skills and had the
necessary competence and experience. There is nothing shown from
which it could be deduced that absence of validity of the driving
licence on the crucial date contributed to the cause of accident.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is found devoid of
substance and the same, with pending applications, is dismissed.
5. The appellant had deposited the entire awarded amount with
interest in terms of order dated 07.12.2016 which amount was released
to the claimants by later order dated 03.02.2017. Therefore, no further
directions in such regard are required.
6. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 11, 2017
yg
