Delhi High Court
Bharti Axa Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Nisha & Ors on 13 July, 2017
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 13th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 522/2016
BHARTI AXA GEN INS CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mohd. Mustafa, Advocate
versus
NISHA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. An accident took place involving a motor vehicle described in
the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal)
as a new truck having chassis no.07389 and engine no.105205, it
concededly being owned by the third respondent, the second
respondent admittedly being its driver at the time the collision took
place which is stated to be 12.15 a.m. (past mid night) on 15.06.2013,
the place of accident being Gol Dhaba, AW Block, SGT Nagar, Delhi.
The accident resulted in injuries being suffered by Mohd. Bismillah
who died in the consequence. The accident claim case (MACT case
no.37H/2013) was instituted by his widow (first respondent).
Reliance was placed on an insurance policy covering third party risk
in respect of the said vehicle issued by the appellant company
(insurer) for the period 31.05.2013 to 30.05.2014. Admittedly, on the
date the insurance policy was issued, the vehicle had not been
registered by the transport authority.
2. The Tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 30.01.2016,
awarded compensation in favour of the first respondent (claimant) and
directed the insurance company to pay.
3. It is noted that the second and third respondents (driver and
owner) had opted not to contest and suffered the proceedings ex parte.
4. The insurance company pleaded breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy, inter alia, on the ground that the vehicle was
not registered and, therefore, it should not have been brought on the
public road and further that there was no permit taken out for the
vehicle. The Tribunal was not impressed with the above defences and
declined any relief to the insurance company.
5. The insurance company, by the appeal at hand, reiterates its
defence of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy
claiming it should at least have been granted recovery rights.
6. At the hearing, question arose as to what was the purpose of the
journey during which the accident took place. The counsel for the
third respondent submitted, on instructions, that the transport
department had issued in the month of June 2013, a temporary
registration in respect of the motor vehicle. He submitted that he is in
a position to lead evidence to justify the journey undertaken on the
public road during the course of which the accident took place. Since
the material on record before the Tribunal on this score is hazy, it is
desirable that both the insurer and the registered owner are granted
one more opportunity to prove their respective contentions.
7. Therefore, without disturbing the award in favour of the
claimant, which the insurance company must satisfy forthwith, the
issue with regard to the breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy on above aspects is remitted to the Tribunal for
further inquiry. During such further inquiry, it shall be the
responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to adduce evidence not only
to bring on record the facts concerning its registration but also the
purpose of the journey undertaken on the relevant date. The insurance
company will be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal.
8. The recovery rights claimed by the insurance company against
the registered owner of the vehicle will be regulated in accordance
with the findings returned by the tribunal in the inquiry ordered above
and, for this, the tribunal will issue the requisite directions.
9. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 16.08.2017.
10. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 13, 2017
yg
