Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sudhakar Gupta & Ors. on 27 October, 2017
$~R-375 & 376
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 684/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
SUDHAKAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
+ MAC APPEAL No. 686/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus
MONIKA GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On inquiry into the two accident claim cases (suit nos. 646/10
and 646A/2010), both instituted on 29.03.2006, the motor accident
claims Tribunal by a common judgment dated 18.04.2011 held that a
motor vehicular accident had occurred on 06.10.2005 involving
collision between two motor vehicles, one being Kinetic scooter
bearing registration no. MH 31 AZ 8873 (the scooter) and, the other,
Tata Eicher Canter bearing registration no. HR 38L 8759 (the Eicher
Canter). The scooter was driven at the relevant point of time by
Monika Gupta (first respondent in MAC Appeal No. 686/2011) and
she was carrying along her mother Snehlata on the pillion. As a result
of the collision which took place in the area of Andrews Ganj, New
Delhi, both suffered injuries, Snehlata dying in the consequence.
2. While one of the aofresaid cases (suit no. 646A/2010) was filed
by the said Monika Gupta, the other (suit no. 646/2010) had been
submitted by the husband and other members of the family dependent
on deceased Snehlata, seeking compensation on account of her death.
The tribunal held on the basis of evidence that the accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of Eicher Canter by its driver Ram
Kishan (a respondent in these appeals). The Eicher Canter was
admittedly owned by and registered in the name of Jaipal Singh
(another respondent in these appeals, he (registered owner) having
been impleaded as a party respondent to the claim petitions.
3. It may be added here itself that Ram Kishan, the driver of
Eicher Canter, is reported to have subsequently died.
4. During the course of the contest, the appellant (insurer) which
had concededly issued an insurance policy against third party risk in
respect of the Eicher Canter had taken a plea that there was breach of
terms and conditions of the said insurance contract for the reason the
vehicle was not covered by a valid permit. The evidence in this regard
was adduced. The registered owner Jaipal Singh (fifth respondent in
MAC Appeal No. 684/2011 and second respondent in MAC Appeal
No. 686/2011) also appeared as a witness in his own defence (RW1).
The tribunal noted the deposition of Jaipal Singh (RW1) explaining
that the vehicle was on the move in the area in question for 'puja' (of
the vehicle) in Kalkaji Temple and also for some repair work, it
having been purchased 10-15 days prior to the accident, he admitting
that there was no valid permit taken in its respect on the date in
question. The tribunal accepted this explanation and on that basis
rejected the plea of the insurance company for exoneration.
5. Jaipal Singh (the registered owner of the offending vehicle) has
been duly served in these proceedings and had even appeared earlier
through counsel. He has not filed any reply to the appeals. When the
appeals are taken up there is no appearance on his behalf. The matter
has been considered with the assistance of the counsel for the
appellant.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the approach of the
Tribunal to the issue raised by the insurance company cannot be
approved of. Since the vehicle was registered in the State of Haryana,
it had no reason to enter the Union Territory of Delhi without a valid
permit. In these circumstances, the explanation offered cannot be
accepted. There has clearly been a breach of terms and conditions of
the insurance policy.
7. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the insurance company
is granted recovery rights against Jaipal Singh (the registered owner of
the offending vehicle).
8. The insurance company had been directed by order dated 27th
July, 2011 and 29th July, 2011, in these appeals to deposit the entire
awarded amount with upto date interest with the Registrar General as
a pre-condition to the stay against execution, such amounts to be put
in fixed deposit receipts for a period of three months with provision
for periodic renewal. By subsequent order dated 19.12.2011 in MAC
Appeal no. 684/2011 the entire amount was released to the claimants.
In the other case (MAC Appeal No. 686/2011) no such order has been
granted.
9. The amount lying in deposit is, thus, directed to be released to
the claimant.
10. The statutory amounts shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2017
nk
