Delhi High Court
Govindas Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Pinki Saini & Ors on 26 October, 2017
$~R-366 & 367
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 597/2011 & CM 639/2015
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Acharya,
Advocate
versus
PINKI SAINI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sunita Harish and Mr.
Girish Kandpal, Advocates for
R-1 to 5
+ MAC APPEAL 794/2011 & CM 16429/2011
GOVINDAS GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
PINKI SAINI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sunita Harish and Mr.
Girish Kandpal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 14.06.2005, a motor vehicular accident took place in which
Surinder Kumar Saini died. His wife and other members of the family
dependent on him (collectively, the claimants) instituted accident
claim case (suit no.384/2009) before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Tribunal) on 21.12.2005, on the basis of averments that the
accident had been caused due to the negligent driving of motor vehicle
described as Traila bearing registration no.HR-38L-2065 (offending
vehicle) by Rajan (driver). In the claim case, besides the said driver,
M/s. Govind Das Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. (appellant in MACA
794/2011) was also impleaded as the respondent, it admittedly being
the registered owner of the offending vehicle, this in addition to New
India Assurance Company Ltd. (insurer), it being the appellant in
MACA 597/2011.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry
and decided the claim case, by judgment dated 11.03.2011, holding
the said driver responsible for the accident. It awarded compensation
in the sum of Rs.28,59,600/- in favour of the claimants (first to fifth
respondents in these appeals).
3. It appears that, in the course of contest, the insurer had taken the
plea that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy on the ground the driver was not holding a valid or effective
driving licence. It relied, inter alia, on the evidence of its official S.K.
Arora (R1W1) to prove that notices under Order XII Rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) had been issued (vide Ex.
R1W1/5-6) sent by post (Ex. R1W1/7-8) but inspite of service no
valid or effective driving licence was produced. It further appears that
during the course of investigation, the driver had handed over a copy
of the document that purported to be a driving licence issued by the
Transport Authority at Ropar (Punjab). The insurer had got the said
document verified, the report (Ex. R1W1/3) indicating it to be a
fabricated document. The insurer would also point out that the record
of the corresponding criminal case also contained a copy of such
document purporting to be a driving licence issued by the transport
authority at Ropar (Punjab).
4. On the other hand, the registered owner examined its employee
Sanket Bansal (R3W1) who deposed, on the strength of his affidavit
(Ex. R3W1/A) and relied on another document purporting to be a
driving licence issued by the transport authority at Agra, U.P., such
document if genuine having the effect of showing that there was a
valid or effective driving licence possessed by the driver.
5. The tribunal, however, was not impressed with the evidence of
the registered owner for the reason the document purporting to be the
licence issued by the transport authority at Agra had not been made
available earlier and, therefore, the insurer had no occasion to have it
verified, no evidence having been called from the concerned transport
authority.
6. It is against the above backdrop that the tribunal, while directing
the insurer to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the
claimants, granted it recovery rights against the registered owner.
7. Both the insurer and the registered owner have come up with
their respective appeals, the plea of the insurer being that it instead of
being called upon to pay, it should have been exonerated, the prayer of
the registered owner, on the contrary, being that its evidence about the
valid licence obtained from the transport authority at Agra has been
wrongly ignored.
8. The appeals have been pressed on the limited issue as to
whether the driver of the vehicle held a valid or effective driving
licence on the date of the accident or not.
9. After some hearing, the learned counsel on both sides fairly
conceded that the issue would require further evidence in as much as
no effort had been made by either side to bring in the report of the
transport authority at Agra.
10. In these circumstances, as jointly prayed, the appeals are
allowed to the effect that a limited inquiry into the validity of the
document purporting to be a licence in favour of the driver in question
issued by the transport authority at Agra is remitted to the tribunal for
adjudication. Needless to add, the burden of proving the genuineness
of the said document, and its validity for the date of cause of action,
will be primarily that of the registered owner of the vehicle, the right
of the insurer being to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any. Ordered
accordingly.
11. Since the limited inquiry on which the matter is being remitted
concerns only the insurer and the registered owner, the said parties
alone shall stand directed to appear before the tribunal on 24.11.2017.
The claimants, if they so wish, however, may also participate in such
proceedings.
12. By order dated 07.07.2011 in MACA 597/2011 of the insurer, it
had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-
date interest with the Registrar General, such amount having been
directed to be put in fixed deposit receipt. By subsequent order, part
of the said amount was permitted to be released to the claimants. The
balance lying in deposit shall also now be released to the claimants
alongwith accrued interest. If there is any deficiency, the insurer will
be obliged to make the same good by requisite deposit with the
tribunal within 30 days. In case of default, the claimants will have the
liberty to take out appropriate execution proceedings before the
tribunal.
13. The statutory deposits made in these appeals shall be refunded.
14. Both appeals and the pending applications are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 26, 2017
yg
