Delhi High Court
The Bajaj Allianz General ... vs Ram Chander Dhawan & Ors. on 2 September, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.09.2019
+ MAC.APP. 251/2015
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Manu Kushwaha, Adv
versus
RAM CHANDER DHAWAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S N Prashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
1. The award of compensation dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned
MACT in Suit No. 386/2008, is impugned on the ground that the driver of
the TSR which caused the accident, resulting in injuries to a 67 year old
man, did not possess a valid driving licence. The motor vehicle-TSR was
insured with the appellant-insurance company. The appellant contends that
it has no liability to pay the compensation, arising out of an accident owing
to the wilful breach of the insurance policy, i.e. the owner/insured permitting
the vehicle to be driven by a person who did not possess a driving license.
2. The insured/owner had stated that he had seen the driving licence of
the driver at the time of engaging him the TSR and he was satisfied that the
said driving licence was valid. The aforementioned document was produced
by him in his reply. However, it was noted that the driving licence did not
specifically licence its holder to drive TSR/three wheeler vehicle.
3. This issue has been dealt with in the impugned order (para 12 at page
32 to 34 of the MAC APP 951/2014) as under:
"12. As per record, driver of the offending vehicle i.e R1 has
clearly stated that at the relevant time he was having driving
licence to drive light motor vehicles and admittedly, he was
not having a driving licence to drive three wheeler scooter. It
would be pertinent to discuss here that the insurance
company (R3) has also examined Sh. Ashutosh Singh (A.M,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1, DLF Building,
Moti Nagar, Delhi), as R3W3, who has inter alia testified that
the R2 (i.e owner of the offending vehicle) had violated the
provisions of M.V. Act by allowing R1 to drive the offending
vehicle as R2 was holding a permit No. TL-1RG/7391 in her
name with respect to the insured/offending vehicle which is
Ex.R3W3/4 and has violated the conditions as imposed by
notification No.F.S./MLO/Transport/03/28-33, dt.
19.08.2003, issued by transport authority auto rickshaw,
Burari, Delhi as per which only the permit holder/R2 v/as
peraiitted to drive the insured/offending vehicle. He has
further testified that R1 was holding a driving licence bearing
No. P96050282, issued on 13.05.1996, which was valid upto
12.05.2016, which is EX.R3W3/5, vide which R1 was
authorized to drive LMV (private). He has also testified that
the said licence was not applicable to drive the insured
vehicle which was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle
and since R2 had allowed R1 to drive the offending vehicle
without a valid driving license and hence, the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy were violated. During his
cross-examination nothing is shown on record if R3W3 is not
deposing truthfully or if at all R1 had a valid driving licence
to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
Accordingly, in view of above the only presumption that
can be drawn in the given facts and circumstances is that R1
was not having a valid driving licence to drive the TSR which
is the offending vehicle, through he might be having a valid
driving licence to drive LMV. As such the driving licence for
LMV would not entitle R1 to drive three wheeler scooter. This
issue is decided in favour of insurance company (R3) and
against R1 and R2."
4. The Court is of the view that in so for as the driver had no valid
driving licence and the TSR being a commercial vehicle, the owner ought to
have satisfied himself that the driver held a valid driving licence for driving
the three-wheeler. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that a valid
driving licence of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) would not licence the
driver to drive a three wheeler vehicle/TSR. It has awarded the
compensation for the third party liability covered under the insurance policy
but has simultaneously granted the insurer right of recovery against the
insured/owner of the vehicle for breach of the policy conditions.
5. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
6. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued
thereon be returned to the insurance company.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2019
sm
