Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mukesh Kumar Soni & Ors on 20 November, 2017
$~R-512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th November, 2017
+ MAC. APP. 593/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
MUKESH KUMAR SONI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The Tribunal, while fastening the liability upon the appellant
(insurer) to pay compensation in favour of the first respondent (the
claimant) on his accident claim case (MACT Suit No. 353/08), by
judgment dated 01.03.2012, for injuries suffered by him in a motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 01.08.2008 due to negligent
driving of three wheeler scooter (TSR) bearing registration No. DL-
1RE-5379, rejected its plea that there was no insurance contract for the
reason that the cheque issued by the second respondent (the insured)
to tender the premium for purchasing the insurance policy covering
third party risk had returned unpaid, observing in such regard that
there was no evidence led by it to substantiate such plea.
2. The appeal against the judgment of Tribunal is pressed at the
hearing only to seek opportunity to lead additional evidence, and in
case the insurance company were to establish the absence of privity of
contract on the ground of "want of consideration", for recovery rights
to be granted against the second respondent.
3. The appeal was admitted and put in the list of "Regulars" as per
order dated 18.03.2015. When it is taken up for hearing today, there is
no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the
Tribunal's record perused.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, it appears just and proper
that the appellant is granted one more opportunity to prove want of
consideration. After all, if no premium has been paid, the owner of
the vehicle cannot be allowed to take any advantage from the
insurance company it being a custodian of public money.
6. While clarifying that the insurance company would continue to
bear the liability towards the claimant, its plea for recovery rights
against the second respondent is remanded to the Tribunal for further
inquiry and fresh adjudication. For such purposes, the concerned
parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22 nd December,
2017. The Tribunal shall issue fresh notices to the second respondent
(owner) as there was no appearance on its behalf at the hearing on the
appeal.
7. By order dated 25.05.2012, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the awarded amount with up to date interest with
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. By a subsequent order dated
18.03.2015, 50% of the said deposited amount was permitted to be
released in favour of the claimant. Since the plea for recovery rights
needs further inquiry in which only the insurer and the registered
owner of the vehicle are expected to participate, the balance lying in
deposit is also directed to be released to the claimant in terms of the
judgment of the Tribunal.
8. The statutory deposit shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
srb
