Delhi High Court
The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Anjleena Khungar & Ors. on 17 July, 2017
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 597/2017
THE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.P. Jain & Mr. Himanshu
Gambhir, Advs.
versus
ANJLEENA KHUNGAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (Petition no. 501/2003) was instituted
before the motor accident claims tribunal on 22.10.2003 by the widow
of Sunil Kumar Sikka, joining certain other dependent family
members, to claim compensation on the allegations that the said
person had died in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
14.07.2003 due to rash driving of Tata Indica car bearing No. HR 06
H 6791 by Arjun Khungar, the said vehicle being registered in the
name of Super Tex Spinners and concededly insured against third
party risk with the appellant insurance company for the period in
question. The insurer contested the said proceedings, inter alia, on
the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy as the driving license (Ex.RX1) presented by the said
driver was not a validly issued document.
2. The above plea was accepted initially and the insurance
company was granted recovery rights against the driver. The
insurance company thereafter moved an application under Order 47
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which resulted in
modification by order dated 03.06.2006 and the recovery rights were
granted against the registered owner of the vehicle.
3. Subsequently, the driver and owner of the vehicle moved an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which came up before the
tribunal which registered it as M.No. 3/10 and allowed it only to the
extent of re-opening the issue of recovery rights, by order dated
24.08.2011 of the tribunal. The said order was challenged by the
appellant insurance company by CM (M) 1499/2011 before this Court.
The petition was disposed of by order dated 18.02.2013 with
directions to the tribunal to focus on two prime issues, the first being
as to whether the driving licence was validly issued by the licensing
authority at Panipat, Haryana, to be renewed thereafter from time to
time by licensing authority at Karnal, Haryana and the other as to
whether the driving license was valid on the date of accident.
4. The inquiry into the issue of recovery rights, thus re-opened,
has resulted in fresh decision of the tribunal by judgment dated
06.04.2017. On the basis of evidence adduced it has been found by
the tribunal that the driver did have the driving license which had been
actually issued by the licensing authority at Karnal, Haryana, it having
been renewed for several years in the past though the initial issue of
license by the said authority was based on a document which
purported to be a license issued by Panipat Authority, it being fake.
5. On the basis of the above findings, the tribunal has declined to
grant recovery rights to the insurance company.
6. The insurance company does not question the correctness of
findings on facts. Its contention, however, is that in the face of the fact
that the original license issued by Karnal Authority was based on fake
document presented before it in 1996, all renewals over the
subsequent periods, lastly for the period covering the accident i.e.
14.07.2003 would be illegal and, therefore, the license though actually
issued by the transporting authority at Karnal has to be treated as non-
est.
7. On identical fact-situation, this Court in MAC Appeal No.
513/2014 Future Gnerali India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bala &
Ors. decided on 17.03.2016, held as under:-
"6. ... the driver held a valid driving licence issued by the
licensing authority at Nuh (Haryana) on 11.04.2011 with
validity up to 10.04.2014, thus, covering the date of
accident. For purposes of the proceedings before the
tribunal, it was of no consequence that the driving licence
had been got issued on the basis of some fake document
purporting to have been issued by the licensing authority at
Agra (UP). Such facts may give rise to consequences,
including under the criminal law, against the person having
indulged in fabrication or use of forged documents. Without
it being shown that the owner of the offending vehicle was
privy or party to such design on the part of the driver to
obtain a driving licence on the basis of fabricated
document, the insurer cannot be allowed to plead breach of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. [United India
Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru & Ors. (2003 3 SCC 338)
and National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3
SCC 297]".
8. In view of the above, the approach of the tribunal cannot be
faulted.
9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 17, 2017
nk
