Delhi High Court
Alok Kumar Ranjan vs Smt Rama Arora & Anr on 15 December, 2017
$~20 & 21 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th December, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 334/2012 and CM No.5721/2012
ALOK KUMAR RANJAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate with
Mr. Prateek Mehta, Advocate
versus
SMT RAMA ARORA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
with Mr. Pankaj Gupta,
Advocate for R-2.
+ MAC.APP. 1099/2014
RAMA ARORA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for
P-2.
versus
ALOK KUMAR RANJAN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate with
Mr. Prateek Mehta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (Suit No.246/09) was instituted by
Rama Arora (the claimant) on 13.07.2009 seeking compensation for
injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that had
occurred on 05.01.2009, involving collision between the two cars, one
Santro Car, bearing registration No.DL-2C-AD-2256 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'santro car') registered in the name of Alok Kumar
Ranjan (appellant in MAC APP.334/2012) and the other, maruti zen
car bearing registration No.DL-8CD-4869 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'maruti zen car"). The claimant was traveling in Maruti zen car
and alleges that the santro car was driven in a rash manner by its
registered owner Alok Kumar Ranjan (appellant in MAC
APP.334/2012) causing the accident. The santro car was admittedly
insured against third party risk for the period in question with Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (insurer of the santro
car). Both the owner and insurer of the santro car were impleaded as
party respondents by the claimant. The registered owner of the santro
car resisted the claim pleading, inter alia, in his written statement that
the car was not driven by him but by his driver Dabloo Prasad, and
that the negligence was on the part of the said driver of the Maruti zen
car. The insurer of the said santro car, on the other hand, took the plea
that the owner of the said car who, according to the claimant's case,
was at the steering wheel did not possess a valid or effective driving
licence and, thus, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
2. The claimant examined herself in the evidence as (PW-1) to
affirm the facts leading to the accident while the registered owner of
the santro car examined himself as witness (R1W1) to prove his
version that the car was driven by his driver Dabloo Prasad, he himself
having travelled as a passenger in the rear seat. He also examined said
Dabloo Prasad (R1W2) to affirm the said facts on oath.
3. The tribunal, however, disbelieved the said version primarily
referring to the fact that pursuant to the investigation into the
corresponding First Information Report (FIR) No.3/2009 which had
been registered in the Police Station Civil Lines at the instance of the
claimant, the registered owner of the santro car had been arrested and
action under the criminal law taken against him. The registered owner
of the santro car was unable to prove that he was holding a valid or
effective driving licence. It is on such basis that while awarding
compensation to the claimant, by judgment dated 19.11.2011, and
calling upon the insurer of santro car to pay, it was granted recovery
rights against the registered owner of the said vehicle.
4. The registered owner of santro car has come up in appeal
reiterating the defence that he was not the driver of the car at the
relevant point of time and that the finding to this effect is wrong. The
insurer of the santro car submitted cross-objections (CM
No.4410/2013) which were treated as independent cross appeal (MAC
APP.1099/2014), that came to be registered in the wake of order dated
25.11.2014. The cross appeal of the insurer is pressed only to seek
dismissal of the said appeal of the registered owner of the santro car.
5. The appellant (registered owner of the santro car) has submitted
on record copy of the report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which had been presented in the
court of metropolitan magistrate pursuant to conclusion of the
investigation into FIR No.4/2009. The said documents reveal that
another FIR had been registered at the instance of the registered owner
of the santro car bearing out his version. This FIR was registered
immediately after the FIR No.3/2009 lodged by the claimant. The FIR
No.4/2009 contains the version of the registered owner of the santro
car to the effect that he was not the driver, rather he was travelling
with his driver Dabloo Prasad at the steering wheel. The FIR in fact
goes on to state that the said driver had been roughed up after the
accident and had to be taken for medical examination to the hospital
by the local police. It appears, the police having noted that both sides
were accusing each other of negligence leading to the collision,
concluded that no prosecutable evidence had come up against either
side and, thus, decided to close the proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the registered owner of the santro car
submitted at the hearing copy of the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by
this court in Crl.M.C. 3131/2015 and Crl.M.C. 3145/2015 on the
petitions, of the registered owner of the santro car and of the claimant,
whereby the proceedings arising out of both the afore-mentioned cross
FIRs were quashed.
7. It is noted that the claimant, during her cross-examination at the
inquiry before the tribunal, had shown at one stage hesitation in
identifying the registered owner of the car as the driver. Undoubtedly,
she thereafter changed her version and sought to identify the appellant
as the driver. But then, the evidence of Dabloo Prasad (R1W2) on the
record of inquiry cannot be wished away. In the opinion of this court,
the version being contemporaneous rather immediate, ought not to be
disbelieved. Noticeably, he was roughed up and taken by police for
medical examination which facts corroborate the theory of his
presence and the role attributed to him. This court, thus, accepts the
said version and holds that the santro car of appellant Alok Kumar
Ranjan was driven at the relevant point of time by his driver Dabloo
Prasad and not by him. The above finding, however, cannot result in
Alok Kumar Ranjan being totally absolved of his liability. On the
principle of vicarious liability he, being the owner of the offending
vehicle, is liable to compensate.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, the question arises as to
whether there has been a breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy. Since such conclusion has been reached by the
tribunal on the premise that the vehicle in question was driven by Alok
Kumar Ranjan, the said conclusion also will have to be disbelieved
and set aside. An inquiry may be called for as to whether Dabloo
Prasad, the driver, who is found to be at the steering wheel did hold a
valid or effective driving licence. On being called upon to respond,
however, the counsel for the insurer submitted that she does not press
for any such inquiry qua Dabloo Prasad.
9. In the above circumstances, the recovery rights granted against
the appellant Alok Kumar Ranjan are hereby set aside.
10. Both the appeals and the pending application are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2017
vk
