Delhi High Court
M/S A. B. Grain Spirits Pvt Ltd vs Id Mohammad & Ors (M/S New India ... on 10 February, 2020
$~10 to 16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10th February, 2020
10
+ MAC.APP. 312/2019 & CM APPL.9427/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
SANDEEP JAIN & ORS
(M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD) ..... Respondents
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
11
+ MAC.APP. 313/2019 & CM APPL.9437/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
WAQAR AHMED & ORS
(M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD) ..... Respondents
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
12
+ MAC.APP. 314/2019 & CM APPL.9439/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
316/2019, 317/2019, 319/2019 Page 1 of 9
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
I.D. MOHAMMAD & ORS
(M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD) ..... Respondents
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
13
+ MAC.APP. 315/2019 & CM APPL.9547/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
RAJ KUMAR JAISWAL & ORS
(M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD) ..... Respondents
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
14
+ MAC.APP. 316/2019 & CM APPL.9549/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
NARGIS & ORS
(M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD) ..... Respondents
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
316/2019, 317/2019, 319/2019 Page 2 of 9
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
15
+ MAC.APP. 317/2019 & CM APPL.9591/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
GAURI SHANKAR& ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
16
+ MAC.APP. 319/2019 & CM APPL.9612/2019
M/S A B GRAIN SPIRITS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rishabh Gulati, Ms.Nishtha,
Ms.Jyoti, Advocates along with
Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President
(Operations)
versus
SOMARI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for
respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the common award dated 24th
November, 2018 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed seven claim petitions
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
against New India Assurance Company Ltd. and granted it recovery rights to
recover the award amount from the appellant and the driver of the offending
vehicle. The appellant is seeking setting aside of the recovery rights granted
by the Claims Tribunal.
2. On 26th April, 2014, a bus bearing registration No.DL-1PC-6531 hit a
TSR at Rani Jhansi road. The accident resulted in the death of Chandresh
Ram and caused injures to six persons, viz., Raj Kumar Jaiswal, Nargis, Id
Mohammad, Gauri Shankar, Waqar Ahmed and Sandeep Jain. Seven claim
petitions were filed in respect of the aforesaid accident which resulted in the
common award.
3. The Claims Tribunal has granted the recovery rights to New India
Assurance Company Ltd. to recover the award amount from the appellant on
the ground that the driving licence of the driver was found to be fake. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. has satisfied the awards by depositing the
award amount with the Claims Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that
the appellant engaged M/s. Aman AJ Corporate Services to provide licensed
and well-trained drivers to the appellant. It is submitted that M/s. Aman AJ
Corporate Services were required to verify the driving licence of the drivers
before recommending them for appointment to the appellant. It is submitted
that the appellant took the driving test of the drivers and appointed them on
the belief that M/s. Aman AJ Corporate Services would have verified their
driving licence. It is further submitted that the appellant engaged about 200
drivers through M/s. Aman AJ Corporate Services out of which the driving
licence of two drivers were found to be fake. It is further submitted that the
drivers submitted a form to the appellant certifying that they possessed a
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
genuine driving licence. Mr.C.B. Singh, Vice President of the appellant
present in Court submits that the appellant is now appointing the drivers
only after verifying the driving licence. It is submitted that the Insurance
Company is not entitled to recovery rights against the appellant. Copy of the
driver management agreement dated 01st April, 2013 between the appellant
and M/s. Aman AJ Corporate Services is handed over and taken on record.
Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004
(3) SCC 297, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumari & Ors,
MAC.APP.75/2011, 79/2011, decided on 07th December, 2015 and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Misso Devi, 2016 Law Suit (HP) 1119.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 urged at the time of the hearing
that the driving licence of respondent No.2 was found to be fake and the
Claims Tribunal has rightly granted recovery rights to respondent No.3. It is
submitted that in similar matters, this Court has granted the recovery rights
to the Insurance Company in respect of drivers appointed by DTC holding a
fake driving licence. Reliance is placed on DTC v. Kamal Kishore,
MAC.APP.1005/2017, decided on 27th July, 2018, DTC v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., MAC.APP.122/2018 decided on 27th July, 2018 and
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Amit Kumar @ Ram Pal,
MAC.APP.188/2018 decided on 28th September, 2018.
6. In DTC v. Kamal Kishore (supra), the Claims Tribunal granted
recovery rights to the Insurance Company to recover the award amount from
DTC on the ground that the driving licence of the driver was found to be
fake. DTC challenged the award on similar ground as taken by the appellant
in the present case that DTC had taken the driving test of the driver and
believed the original driving licence to be true. This Court rejected the
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
argument and upheld the recovery rights on the ground that DTC was duty
bound to verify the genuineness of the driving licence before confirming the
appointment of the drivers. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereunder:
"1. The appellant has challenged the recovery rights granted by the
Claims Tribunal to respondent No.2 to recover the award amount
from the appellant on the ground that the driving licence of the driver
was found to be fake.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was not aware, at the time of appointing the driver, that his driving
licence was fake. It is further submitted that the appellant took the
driving test of the driver at the time of the accident and the original
licence produced by the driver was believed to be true.
3. This Court is of the view that the appellant, being a public
corporation, it was their bounded duty to have verified the
genuineness of the licence before confirming the appointment of the
driver. In that view of the matter, taking the driving test of the driver
and believing the driving licence produced by driver to be true, is not
sufficient discharge of the duties. There is no infirmity in the recovery
rights granted by the Claims Tribunals to the Insurance Company to
recover the award amount from the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be
granted recovery right to recover the award amount from the driver
who was holding a fake driving licence.
5. The appellant is at liberty to recover the award amount from
the driver in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms."
7. Same view has been taken by this Court in DTC v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereunder:
"1. The appellant has challenged the recovery rights granted by the
Claims Tribunal to respondent to recover the award amount from the
appellant on the ground that the driving licence of the driver was
found to be fake.
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was not aware, at the time of appointing the driver, that his driving
licence was fake. It is further submitted that the appellant took the
driving test of the driver at the time of the accident and the original
licence produced by the driver was believed to be true.
3. This Court is of the view that it was the bounded duty of the
appellant, being a public corporation, to have verified the
genuineness of the licence before confirming the appointment of the
driver. In that view of the matter, taking the driving test of the driver
and believing the driving licence produced by driver to be true, is not
sufficient discharge of the duties. There is no infirmity in the recovery
rights granted by the Claims Tribunals to the Insurance Company to
recover the award amount from the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be
granted recovery right to recover the award amount from the driver
who was holding a fake driving licence.
5. The appellant is at liberty to recover the award amount from
the driver in accordance with law.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
8. Same view has been taken by this Court in United Indian Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Amit Kumar @ Ram Pal (supra). The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
to the limited extent that the Claims Tribunal has not given recovery
rights to the appellant to recover the award amount from respondent
No.3 (Delhi Transport Corporation).
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driving
licence of respondent No.2 (driver of the DTC bus) was found to be
fake. It is submitted that the appellant examined the witness R3W1
who proved that the investigating officer of the police verified the
driving licence of respondent No.2 and found the same to be fake.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the
respondent No.3 was not aware, at the time of appointing the driver,
that his driving licence was fake. It is further submitted that the
respondent No.3 took the driving test of the driver at the time of the
accident and the original licence produced by the driver was believed
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
to be true.
4. This Court is of the view that the respondent No.3, being a
public corporation, was duty bound to have verified the genuineness
of the licence before confirming the appointment of the driver. In that
view of the matter, taking the driving test of the driver and believing
the driving licence produced by driver to be true, is not sufficient
discharge of the duties. This Court is of the view that, the appellant is
entitled to recovery rights to recover the award amount from the
respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the
appellant be granted recovery right to recover the award amount from
the driver who was holding a fake driving licence.
6. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted recovery
rights to recover the award amount from respondent No.3.
7. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to recover the award amount from
the driver in accordance with law."
9. This Court is of the view that it was the bounden duty of the appellant
to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of the drivers before
appointing them. Considering that the appellant was operating 300 buses on
Delhi roads, merely taking the driving test and believing the driving licence
of the driver to be true, is not sufficient discharge of their duty. Failure to
verify the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver before employing
him amounts to fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. Failure of the
appellant to adhere to such duty has resulted in an unlicenced driver to drive
on Delhi roads which has resulted in the accident in question which has
taken away one valuable life and injured six persons. This Court is not
satisfied with the explanation for the non-verification of the driving licence
of the driver before employing him in the present case.
10. There is no merit in the appeals which are hereby dismissed. The
pending applications are disposed of.
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
11. The appellant has deposited the award amount with the Claims
Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is directed to release the same to the
claimants.
12. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
signatures of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2020
dk
MAC.APP. 312/2019, 313/2019, 314/2019, 315/2019,
