Delhi High Court
M/S Seva Bharti vs Mohd Sadiq Khan & Ors (Icici ... on 23 January, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23.01.2020.
+ MAC.APP. 644/2016, CM APPL. 30125/2016, CM APPL.
41781/2016 & CM APPL. 30123/2016
M/S SEVA BHARTI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani and Mr.
Abhay Singh Bhadoria, Advocates.
versus
MOHD SADIQ KHAN & ORS (ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Azad Ali, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Biswas,
Advocate for R-2 & R-4.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the judgment dated 25.05.2016 passed by the
learned MACT in Suit No. 31/14, on the ground that the sole reason for the
insurer not indemnifying the loss under an existing insurance cover, was that
the driver of the offending vehicle did not produce a valid driving licence.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a driving licence
has now been brought on record which was not available to the appellant
since he had sold the vehicle many years ago to respondent no. 4 in the
appeal. He would like to adduce relevant evidence in this regard. He is
permitted to do so.
3. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the insurance company
submits that: (i) a driving licence, which was allegedly recovered by the
Investigating Officer, was produced before the learned Tribunal, which upon
verification was found to be false, and (ii) despite notice having been served
upon the driver, he did not participate in the proceedings.
4. However, now the driver has produced a driving licence bearing no.
UP86 200700261 10, which purportedly covers the period of accident. It
was issued on 19.12.2007 for LMV and on 21.07.2010 for Transport
Vehicles. If upon verification, this driving licence is found to be correct and
genuine, then surely the insurer would have to cover the liability.
5. In view of the above, it will be in the interest of justice that the parties
be allowed to lead evidence apropos this document. Accordingly, the case is
remanded back to the learned Tribunal for determination of whether the said
licence is genuine or not.
6. For this purpose, the parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal
on 27.02.2020. Since the case pertains to an accident which occurred in
2013, the learned counsel for the parties will request the learned Tribunal
that the case be disposed-off within a period of two months from the date
when the case is next listed before the learned Tribunal. They assure the
Court that they would not seek any adjournment and will assist the learned
Tribunal promptly on each date whenever the case will be listed.
7. The appeal is allowed and disposed-off with the above directions.
8. Let the LCR be returned to the learned Tribunal.
9. The statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be returned
to the appellant.
CM APPL. 41780/2016 (cross objections by R-1)
10. Let the cross objections, if in order, be numbered as a separate MAC.
Appeal by the Registry.
11. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on
behalf of the non-applicant/insurance company.
12. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that in the interim,
he shall obtain an E-copy of the LCR to prepare himself so as to assist the
Court fully on the next date.
13. List for arguments on 16.07.2020.
14. LCR of MAC.APP. 644/2016 be retained and be tagged alongwith the
cross objections.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JANUARY 23, 2020
AB
