The United India Insurance ... vs Urmila Devi & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 3636 Del

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision:26th July, 2017

+        MAC.APP.723/2016 & CM 12343/2017

         THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
         COMPANY LTD.                             ..... Appellant
                       Through: Mr.S.P. Jain, Advocate
                       versus

         URMILA DEVI & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                      Through:           Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate for
                                         respondent no.4.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                             JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 9th June, 2016 to the extent that the Claims Tribunal has declined to grant recovery rights to the appellant.

2. The accident dated 24th June, 2010 resulted in the death of Dalip Kumar Singh. The deceased was survived by his mother and brother who filed an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal which resulted in the award dated 9th June, 2016 whereby compensation of Rs.4,20,012/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to respondents no.1 and 2. The appellant has satisfied the award against respondent no.2 and is seeking recovery rights against respondents no.3 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that

the driving licence of respondent no.3 was fake and the appellant examined the witness from Road Transport Authority, Guwahati to prove that the licence was fake. It is submitted that respondents no.3 and 4 filed common written statement. However, respondent no.4 later amended the written statement to take an additional plea that he had taken the test of the driver before employing him and believed his licence to be genuine.

4. The Claims Tribunal held that respondent no.4 came in the witness box as R2W1 and deposed that he had seen the driving licence of the driver and believed it to be genuine. R2W1 further deposed that he took the driving test of the driver before employing him. The Claims Tribunal held that there was no willful breach on part of respondent no.4 and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to recovery rights.

5. It is well settled that the owner who takes the driving test and believes the driving licence shown to him at the time of the employment to be proved, cannot be held to be guilty of willful breach. Reference in this regard be made to National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC) and United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru, I (2003) ACC 611 (SC)

6. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.

7. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant.

8. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

JULY 26, 2017                                          J.R. MIDHA, J.
Dk