Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lata Chandel & Ors on 6 July, 2017
$~9 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 372/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
LATA CHANDEL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arvind Duggal, Proxy
Advocate for R-4.
+ MAC.APP. 381/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
MITHLESH PRASHAD SAKLANI & MANOJ & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arvind Duggal, Proxy
Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 19.08.2006, Tarun Chandel @ Tinku (deceased) and
Mithlesh Prasad @ Manoj (injured person) with some other young
persons of same age group were out going to play football in the
direction of Kaushik Enclave. At about 6.10 a.m., a motor vehicle
described as Canter truck bearing no. DL 1M 0862 (the canter)
statedly came in a rash or negligent manner hitting Tarun Chandel @
Tinku and Mithlesh Prasad @ Manoj causing injuries to them. In the
consequence, Tarun Chandel @ Tinku died. Two claim petitions
seeking compensation came to be instituted before the motor accident
claims tribunal (tribunal), one (suit no. 631/2006) filed by the parents
of the deceased while the other (suit no. 630/2006) by the injured
person. In each case Sunil Kumar (respondent in these appeals) was
impleaded as the first respondent on the plea that he was the driver of
the canter on account of rash or negligent driving on whose part the
accident had occurred. Mahender Singh, the registered owner of the
canter, one of the respondents in these appeals (he having filed cross-
objections), was shown in the array of the claim petitions as second
respondent, he statedly being the registered owner of the vehicle. The
canter was covered by an insurance policy against third party risk
issued by National Insurance Company Ltd. (the appellant) for the
relevant period which was also made a party to the claim petitions.
2. The claim petitions were contested in which evidence was led
by all sides. In the course of the contest, the insurance company took
the plea of breach of policy condition on the ground the driver did not
hold a valid or effective driving licence. The evidence led by the
driver and owner focused on this aspect as well.
3. The tribunal, by judgment dated 03.01.2008, upheld the case of
the claimants that rash or negligent driving of the canter was the cause
for accident and awarded compensation in each case. It was brought
out during the inquiry that the driver was relying on copy of driving
license which was meant for light motor vehicles. The canter being
not a light motor vehicle but a medium goods vehicle, in the
submission of the insurance company, was not covered by the said
driving license. This contention was upheld. While directing the
insurance company to pay compensation, it was granted recovery
rights against the owner.
4. The insurance company filed these appeals assailing the
directions given by the tribunal to pay to the claimants and then
recover from the registered owner, its plea being that it should have
been fully exonerated.
5. In the course of hearing on these appeals, the owner has come
up with cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC), his contention being that the driver had
actually shown another license to him at the time of he being engaged,
and further the license shown at the inquiry was also sufficient to
indicate he was not disqualified from driving the vehicle, and thus,
there was no breach of policy conditions and, consequently, the right
to recover given to the insurance company is not correct.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
gone through the record, this Court is of the view that the directions
given by the tribunal do not call for any interference.
7. The tribunal‟s record shows that the respondent Sunil Kumar
while appearing as R1W1 even tried to disown the owner of the
vehicle as his employer, taking the position that he had been falsely
implicated though referring to copy of driving license purporting to be
one issued in his favour it having come on record as mark „A‟. The
owner Mahender Singh, while appearing as R2W1 on the strength of
his affidavit (Ex.R2W1/A) confirmed on oath that Sunil Kumar, the
respondent, was actually engaged by him as a driver on the vehicle in
question. The tribunal, after considering this evidence, has reached
the conclusion that Sunil Kumar, was indeed the driver engaged on the
vehicle and it was on account of his negligence that the accident had
occurred. Pertinent to note here Sunil Kumar never challenged the
said conclusion by any appeal. The finding having been returned on
proper appraisal of evidence does not call for any interference.
8. But the crucial question which arises is as to whether the cross-
objector Mahender Singh, the registered owner of the vehicle (the
person insured), was privy to the fact that the driver Sunil Kumar held
a license meant only for light motor vehicles (LMV), as is the purport
of the document mark „A‟ relied upon by the said driver during his
testimony. Noticeably, the cross-objector made no attempt to show
that it was not the license but there was another valid license which
would hold good for a medium goods vehicle. A very vague plea was
raised that, at the time of he being engaged, Sunil Kumar had shown
some other license. Noticeably, the registered owner would not even
say that the said "some other license" which had been seen by him
was valid for a medium goods vehicle.
9. In above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the
driver was holding a valid or effective license for the vehicle in
question. This gives a right to the insurance company to raise the plea
of breach of policy conditions in that license to drive a light motor
vehicle could not conceivably show that the person in question had the
capacity or ability to drive a heavier motor vehicle.
10. The proceedings before the accident claims tribunal relate to
benevolent law which has to be applied, in letter and spirit, in favour
and for the benefit of the claimants. The insurance company is in a
position to pay immediately to bring succor to the persons injured.
Since it has been given the right to recover, it should not grudge the
initial responsibility fastened upon it to pay to the claimants.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals and the cross-objections
are dismissed.
12. Statutory deposits, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 06, 2017
nk
