Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Azad Khan & Ors. on 1 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 01, 2018
+ MAC. APP. 240/2013
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhiushek Kumar Gola,
Advocate
Versus
MUNNA @ DAUD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo.
+ MAC. APP. 262/2013
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhiushek Kumar Gola,
Advocate
Versus
AZAD KHAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. In a vehicular accident, which took place on 23rd March, 2010,
Munna @ Daud, s/o Ramajan Ali and Azad Khan s/o Munshi Khan, were
grievously injured and they had sought compensation on account of
injuries suffered by them. Vide separate Awards of even date i.e. of 2nd
January, 2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred
MAC.APP. 262/2013
to as the "Tribunal"), granted compensation of `5,85,200/- with interest
@7.5% to injured Munna @ Daud and compensation of `1,26,031/- with
interest @7.5% p.a. to injured Azad Khan while holding appellant-Insurer
liable to pay the awarded compensation.
2. In the above captioned two appeals, the challenge is to the
aforesaid impugned Awards on the liability aspect only, therefore, the
facts of this case and the breakup of compensation, as awarded by the
Tribunal, need not be adverted to. The driver and owner of vehicle in
question had neither contested before the Tribunal nor has before this
Court. Since these appeals arise out of one accident, therefore, with the
consent of counsel for appellant, these appeals have been heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Counsel for appellant-Insurer assails the impugned Awards on the
ground that the Tribunal has saddled Insurer with the liability to pay the
awarded compensation on the ground that Notice under Order XII, Rule 8
CPC was not issued to driver and owner of the insured vehicle. It is
pointed out by counsel for Insurer that witness from the concerned
Licensing Authority had come forward to prove that one of the driving
licenses of the driver of insured vehicle was found to be fake and other
driving license was for light motor vehicles (NT) and motor cycle only. It
is pointed out that license for light motor vehicle was specifically made
for Non Transport Vehicles, whereas driver of the insured vehicle was
driving a light goods vehicle, which had met with the accident. It is
further pointed out by learned counsel for Insurer that the Tribunal has
erred in distinguishing Supreme Court's decision in Oriental Insurance
MAC.APP. 262/2013
Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, wherein it has been
clearly declared that if the driver does not hold a valid and effective
license for driving a goods vehicle, then it tantamounts to breach of terms
and conditions of insurance policy and so, recovery rights were granted to
the Insurer. Thus, it is submitted that in light of Supreme Court's decision
in Angad Kol (Supra), recovery rights ought to be granted to Insurer.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of evidence on record and the
decision cited, I find that Supreme Court in Angad Kol (Supra) has
categorically declared that recovery rights ought to be granted, if driver of
the insured vehicle does not hold valid and effective driving license to
drive the goods vehicle. The Tribunal has erred in distinguishing the
Supreme Court's decision in Angad Kol (Supra). Accordingly, impugned
Awards are modified to the extent that the liability to pay the
compensation is of the driver and owner of the insured vehicle. It is
brought to the notice of this Court that the awarded compensation has
been already disbursed to the Injured persons. Resultantly, recovery
rights are granted to appellant-Insurer to recover the awarded amount
with interest from the owner and driver of insured vehicle in question.
5. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are
disposed of. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant-Insurer.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 262/2013
