Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Kaushliya & Ors. on 14 September, 2017
$~R-210
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 370/2010
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
KAUSHLIYA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (suit no.355/2007) was instituted by
first to fifth respondents on 10.10.2007 seeking compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 due to the death of Om
Prakash in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 29.08.2007
involving the negligent driving of a Tempo bearing registration no.
PB-32-NTP-4822, admittedly registered in the name of the seventh
respondent (registered owner). The case was based on the allegations
that the cause for accident was the negligent driving by the driver
(sixth respondent).
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 29.03.2010, accepted the said claim for compensation holding
the driver responsible. It determined the compensation in the sum of
Rs.13,15,200/- and directed the insurer to pay with interest at the rate
of 7.5% p.a. During the course of inquiry, the insurer had raised the
plea that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy as the vehicle was not covered by a valid permit. The
evidence was led by examining Kirti (R3W1), Senior Executive
(Legal) and Veer Narain Singh (R3W2), an official of Transport
Authority. The conjoint effect of the evidence of the said witnesses
was that though there was a valid permit in respect of the vehicle for
the period 14.09.2007 to 13.09.2012, there was no valid permit for the
period covering the date of accident. The Tribunal, however, failed to
make any observations on the plea raised in defence by the insurer
leaving the issue unaddressed.
3. By the present appeal, the insurer presses the appeal restricting
it to seek recovery rights.
4. The appeal was admitted and directed to be listed in the
category of 'regulars' by order dated 17.10.2012. When it is taken up
for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of sixth or seventh
respondents. The matter has been heard with the assistance of the
counsel for the insurer.
5. A perusal of the record of the tribunal confirms that the absence
of permit had been duly proved. This constitutes breach of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy and there being no effort on the
part of the registered owner to show facts to the contrary, the prayer is
accepted. The recovery rights are granted in favour of the appellant
against the seventh respondent (registered owner of the vehicle). For
enforcement of such rights, the insurer may take out appropriate
proceedings before the tribunal.
6. The insurance company had deposited the awarded amount with
the tribunal in terms of order dated 04.06.2010, and from out of such
deposit 50% (fifty percent) was released to the claimants in terms of
order dated 17.10.2012. The balance held in deposit shall also now be
released to the claimants.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
yg
