Delhi High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Dariyao Singh & Ors. on 11 December, 2017
$~R-687
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1268/2012 and CM 20810/2012
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Ms.
Anjali Chawla for Ms. Suman
Bagga, Advocate
versus
DARIYAO SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (MACT 73/10/09), instituted on
06.11.2009 by the first respondent (claimant), the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by its judgment dated 29.08.2012,
awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.7,90,348/- and fastened
the liability on the appellant (insurer) to pay with interest at the rate of
9% p.a. for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident
that had occurred on 17.08.2009 due to negligent driving of truck
bearing registration no.HR-46A-2717 (truck). The tribunal found that
the accident had been caused in the area of Katewara Mor, Quatab
Garh Road, Delhi due to negligent driving by the second respondent
(driver). The truck was proved to be owned by the third respondent
(owner) at whose instance the appellant (insurer) had issued the
insurance policy. While contesting, the insurer had taken the plea of
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground
that there was no valid permit in respect of the truck for the Union
Territory of Delhi. It led evidence by examining Puneet Gupta
(R3W1), its Regional Head, Legal & TP claims. The tribunal,
however, did not give any relief to the insurer and instead fastened the
liability to pay upon it.
2. The appeal at hand is pressed only to seek recovery rights.
3. The appeal was put in the list of 'Regulars' as per order dated
22.02.2016. When it is taken up in its own turn, there is no
appearance on behalf of the respondents. The counsel for the
appellant has been heard and with his assistance the record perused.
4. It is noted that the second and third respondents had not
contested the evidence led by the insurer during the inquiry before the
Tribunal. The said evidence showed that the vehicle registered in the
State of Haryana had entered Delhi without any valid permit. No
evidence to the contrary was adduced by the second or third
respondents. Same is the position at the stage of appeal.
5. In these circumstances, a case of breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy has been duly brought home. The
insurance company is granted recovery rights against the second and
third respondents. For enforcement of such rights, it has the liberty to
take out appropriate execution proceedings before the tribunal.
6. By order dated 17.12.2012, the insurer had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest and from
out of such deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- was permitted to be released to the
claimant. The entire balance lying in deposit with corresponding
interest shall now be released to the claimant in terms of the judgment
of the tribunal.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company.
8. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2017
yg
