Delhi High Court
M/S Great Value Fuels Pvt Ltd vs Uttam Rastogi & Ors on 7 July, 2017
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 07th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 255/2017 and CM No.10130/2017 and 10132-
10133/2017
M/S GREAT VALUE FUELS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Kanth, Advocate
versus
UTTAM RASTOGI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate for
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 28.04.2014, a motor vehicular accident took place involving
two vehicles one being motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-6S-AE
4960 (Motor Cycle) and a bus bearing registration no.DL-1PD-0133
(bus). The accident resulted in injuries being suffered by two persons
Sunil and Uttam Rastogi. On the basis of detailed accident report
(DAR) submitted by the local police, in the wake of registration of
first information report (no.126/14) of police station Lodhi Colony,
accident claim case was registered by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and, after inquiry, it resulted in judgment dated 27.07.2016.
2. Noticeably, the bus is owned by the appellant and it was
concededly insured against third party risk for the period in question
with the third respondent.
3. By judgment dated 27.07.2016, the tribunal awarded
compensation in favour of the claimants/ first and second respondents
respectively and upheld the contention of the insurance company as to
the breach of the policy condition on the basis of the finding that the
driving license presented by the driver of the bus (fourth respondent
herein), he having been engaged by the appellant (registered owner)
upon verification, was found to be fake.
4. While the insurance company was asked to satisfy the award, it
was granted recovery rights against the appellant. It is this part of the
direction in the impugned judgment which is challenged by the appeal
at hand.
5. On being asked, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly
conceded that the license presented by the driver was a fake document.
He also conceded that the insurance company had issued and served a
notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) calling upon the insured (registered owner) to produce the valid
and effective driving license but the appellant did not respond to the
said notice. He further fairly conceded that at the stage of such
opportunity, the appellant did not adduce any evidence.
6. The contention raised by the appellant is that when the driver
was engaged, he had shown a valid and effective driving license and,
therefore, due diligence had been exercised and if the driver was later
found to be using a fake document, the insured cannot be held liable.
Reliance is placed on Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National
Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 which, inter alia, referred to
the law on the subject as laid down authoritatively in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338.
7. Having heard the learned counsel, this court finds that the
judgment cited by the appellant does not assist it for the simple reason
there is no evidence led to prove that at the time he being engaged, the
driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle had been checked
and verified to be found to be a valid document or, to put it simply,
that the registered owner of the vehicle had exercised due diligence.
In absence of evidence to such effect, the contentions raised in the
appeal cannot be accepted.
8. The appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed. The
pending applications also stand dismissed.
9. The amount deposited by the appellant in terms of interim order
dated 10.03.2017 shall be released in favour of the insurance company
subject to it showing proof of having satisfied the award in favour of
the claimants.
10. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J
JULY 07, 2017
yg
