Delhi High Court
Gul Hasan @ Raju vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 11 July, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th July, 2017
+ CM (M) 646/2017 and CM APPL.23013/2017
GUL HASAN @ RAJU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain,
Advocate
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Bhandrai, Advocate
for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Three accident claim cases (suit no.841-843/2008) instituted on
03.03.2008, all arising out of the same motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 01.07.2007, statedly on account of negligent driving of
bus bearing registration No.DL-IPB-2998 (the offending vehicle) were
clubbed together and inquired into by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the tribunal), resulting in common judgment dated
15.02.2010, whereby while accepting the case of the claimants about
the accident having been caused due to negligent driving of the said
vehicle resulting in injuries to two claimants and death of alteast one
person, compensation was awarded with initial liability to pay
fastened on National Insurance Company Limited (the first
respondent), it concededly being the insurer against third party risk
qua the offending vehicle for the period in question.
2. Admittedly, the appellant is the registered owner of the
offending vehicle on whose request the insurance policy had been
issued. The insurer had contested, inter alia, on the plea that there was
breach of the policy condition as there was no valid permit covering
the vehicle for the date in question. No evidence in rebuttal to the
evidence led by the insurer in this regard was adduced on behalf of the
appellant. The tribunal, thus, found breach of policy conditions and
granted recovery rights in favour of the insurer.
3. The appellant did not file any appeal challenging the judgment
of the tribunal dated 15.02.2010. He waited instead for the insurance
company to submit execution applications. In the execution
proceedings (execution case Nos.60883/2016, 60884/2016 and
61229/2016), in the wake of the recovery certificates issued, he filed
objections. The said objection petitions were considered by the
tribunal but repelled by common order dated 24.09.2016, the prime
ground being that such objections could not be entertained at the stage
of execution.
4. The counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that procedurally
the contentions urged herein could not have been raised in the form of
objections in the execution proceedings. He instead tried to argue for
some time that there was a valid permit covering the vehicle in
question on the date of the accident. He referred in this context to a
notice under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 issued by
the Transport Authority, Delhi on 02.07.2007 leading to order dated
24.07.2007 cancelling the stage carriage permit in respect of the
vehicle. His contention is that the fact that the transport authority
issued the said show cause notice and eventually cancelled the stage
carriage permit on 24.07.2007 shows that a valid permit existed. On
being asked, however, he conceded that he is not in a position to show
any document indicating validation of the permit beyond 30.06.2007.
5. The documents in the nature of show cause notice dated
02.07.2007 and the order dated 24.07.2007 (as at pages 19 and 22-23
of the paper book) themselves show that the permit of the vehicle was
valid only upto 30.06.2007 and there was no renewal beyond the said
period.
6. When faced with the above status of the documents filed by the
appellant himself, the counsel now submits, on instructions, that he
may be allowed to withdraw the petition.
7. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
8. The appellant/petitioner is directed to satisfy the execution
petitions forthwith.
9. Tribunal's record shall be returned forthwith.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 11, 2017
vk
