Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pappu Kumar Yadav & Ors. on 24 October, 2017
$~R-355
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 546/2011
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya,
Advocate
versus
PAPPU KUMAR YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-
1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (suit no.1043A/2010) instituted on
08.08.2007 by the first respondent (claimant), the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by judgment dated
15.03.2011, returned a finding that the claimant had suffered injuries
in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on the night
intervening 4th and 5th April, 2006 due to the negligent driving of a
truck bearing registration no.HR-45-8779 which was admittedly
insured against third party risk with the appellant / insurance company
(insurer) for the period in question. The driver and owner of the truck
had already been impleaded as party respondents in the said claim
case, they being the second and third respondents respectively in the
appeal. Both the said respondents having filed written statement did
not participate in the subsequent inquiry during which the insurer of
the truck took the defence that it was not liable to pay compensation
since there was no permit held in respect of the truck for the date in
question, it being a vehicle registered in the State of Haryana and the
accident having occurred within the jurisdiction of Delhi.
2. The insurer had issued a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to the owner of the vehicle
(third respondent) calling upon the said party to produce the relevant
documents. It led evidence by examining S.K. Arora (R3W1), Senior
Assistant, who inter alia, proved the said notice under Order 12 Rule 8
CPC (Ex. R3W1/2), the said notice having been sent by registered
post to the third respondent (owner of the truck) vide postal receipt
(R3W1/3) and under postal certificate (Ex.R3W1/4). The evidence of
the witness clearly shows that there was no response to the said notice.
3. The tribunal, however, awarded compensation in favour of the
claimant and directed the insurer to pay, declining to grant any
recovery rights to it on the ground that it had taken no steps for
verification of the permit.
4. The appeal at hand is pressed by the insurer only to seek
recovery rights against the second and third respondents. The said
respondents though having put in appearance at one stage, have
chosen not to appear at the hearing.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, it is found that the
insurance company had taken all the necessary steps within its power
and control. It had called upon the owner of the truck to produce a
valid permit if there was any existing at the relevant point of time but
the owner would not respond. The natural inference is that there is no
valid permit in existence. In these circumstances, the breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been brought home.
6. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The insurer is granted recovery
rights against the second and third respondents. For enforcement of
such rights, it shall have the liberty to take out appropriate proceedings
before the tribunal.
7. By order dated 11.07.2011, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest with the
Registrar General of this court and by order dated 04.10.2016, some
portion of the amount was permitted to be released to the claimant, the
balance kept in fixed deposit receipts. The Registry shall now
calculate the balance payable to the claimant in terms of the award and
release the same accordingly.
8. The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2017
yg
