Delhi High Court
Irfan Ahmad vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 7 July, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 7th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 848/2014 & CM Nos. 10150/2017 (delay),
15351/2014 (stay)
IRFAN AHMAD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Ashim Vachher, Mr.
Pawash Piyush, Ms. Geetika
Sharma & Mr. Sumeet, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 19.03.2010, a motor vehicular accident occurred, statedly
involving rash or negligent driving of Tata Indica car bearing
registration no. UP 16R 9587 (the offending vehicle). As per the
evidence on record, the said vehicle was driven by one Santosh
Kumar, son of Jaswant Singh. The offending vehicle was owned by
Irfan Ahmed, son of Rizwan Ahmed (appellant herein), it being
concededly insured against third party risk for the period in question
with National Insurance Company Ltd. (first respondent herein). Two
persons are stated to have been injured in accident, they being Asghar
Khan & Abhishek Chaurasia. The former died in the consequence.
The legal heirs of Asghar Khan took out accident claim case (petition
no. 355/2010) while Abshishek Chaurasia instituted another accident
claim case (suit no. 378/2010). In both the claim cases, the driver,
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were impleaded as
respondents. The insurance company alleged breach of policy
conditions by pointing out that the driving license relied upon by the
driver, upon verification, had been found to be fake. This contention
was upheld on the basis of evidence adduced and while the insurer
was called upon to initially pay the compensation, it was granted
recovery rights against the appellant (registered owner) of the vehicle.
2. The registered owner has come up with this appeal assailing
such directions in both judgments. Though filing of common appeal
against two different judgments in two different claim cases was not
correct, given the fact that this was not noticed at the inception and
three years have passed by, it will not be proper now to regulate the
parties to the initial stage by insisting on splitting up of the two
appeals. The registry must check such irregularity at the time of
filing.
3. What is pointed out by the appellant is that reliance had been
placed on a driving license bearing no. 3882/KNJ/2007 issued by the
transport authority at Kannoj (UP). It is stated that this was a valid
driving license. Copy of the said license has been submitted at page
63 of the paper book. It reveals that it is in the name of Satendra
Katiyar, son of Jaswant Singh Katiyar. It is the submission of the
appellant that Satendra Katiyar is another name of driver Santosh
Kumar.
4. The insurance company in its effort to prove that the above said
license was fake had moved an application in the tribunal, ahead of
hearing on 15.11.2011, seeking summoning of the licensing authority
at Kannoj UP with respect to driving license 3887/KNJ/07 dated
12.09.2007. Evidence in such regard came on record in the form of
document Ex.R3W2/B, it pertaining to license number
3887/KNJ/2007.
5. Apparently, the number of license respecting which the
evidence was led by the insurance company differs from the one of the
license relied upon by the appellant and his driver it being
3882/KNJ/2007. The tribunal went by the evidence adduced by the
insurance company and returned finding against the appellant.
6. The appellant insists that the license relied upon by him as
referred to above is a genuine license. If the fact were to be held
proved, it would relieve the registered owner of its responsibility to
pay, shifting the responsibility on to the insurer to indemnify.
7. Undoubtedly, the appellant was guilty of neglect in proper
prosecution of his defence. He did not take effective steps at the time
of inquiry before the tribunal. He contends that it was the counsel
engaged by him who did not discharge his professional responsibility
properly. Be that as it may, it was also the burden of the appellant to
ensure that his version was brought before the tribunal at the
appropriate stage. Delay consequently has occurred.
8. While this appeal was entertained, by order dated 17.09.2014,
the appellant was directed to deposit twenty five percent (25%) of the
awarded amount with accumulated interest with the Registrar General
of this court and upon such condition being satisfied the enforcement
of the recovery rights was to stand stayed. The amount thus deposited
with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch was kept in fixed deposit
receipts for one year with provision of auto renewal.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the proper course
would be to give one more opportunity to the appellant to prove the
genuineness of the document he relies on. The short inquiry required
to be undertaken for this purpose is remitted to the tribunal where the
appellant and the insurer shall appear on 9th August, 2017.
10. In the given fact-situation, the amount deposited by the
appellant shall presently be retained in fixed deposit receipt by the
tribunal. For this, the Registrar General shall take necessary steps to
transfer the said fixed deposit receipt to the control of the tribunal.
The tribunal shall make endeavour to take a decision after affording
opportunity to both sides to lead evidence on the above issue at an
early date and deal with the amount deposited in accord with the
decision rendered. Needless to add, if the contention of the appellant
were to be upheld, the amount deposited with accumulated interest
would have to be refunded. Conversely, if the contention were to be
rejected, the appellant would continue to be liable to reimburse the
compensation paid by the insurer in terms of judgment of the tribunal.
11. The statutory amount shall be presently retained, to be
disbursed after the decision has been rendered in above inquiry by the
tribunal, and in its accord.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 07, 2017/nk
