The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Dalbir Singh & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.391 of 2008 & CM Nos.9813 & 9815/2008 % Judgment reserved on: 1st August, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 11th August, 2008 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 1st Floor, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Building Jhandewala Extn. New Delhi. ….Appellant Through: Mr.Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Adv. Versus 1.Sh.Dalbir Singh S/o Shri Gopi Ram R/o Village Samey Pur, Post Ujjwa, Delhi. 2.Sh.Girwar Singh, S/o Shri Chottu Ram R/o Village & PO Dariyapur, District Jhajjar, Haryana. 3.Sh.Girwar Singh R/o 17/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana. …Respondents. Through: Nemo Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 04.02.08 passed by Sh. Suresh Chand Rajan, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short as the "Tribunal"), Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.02 at about 11.00p.m. Dalbir Singh, Respondent no.1, aged 33 years, was going to his house on his scooter, one truck bearing registration no. HR-38-E-8698 being driven by Girwar Singh, Respondent no.2 came at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of the Respondent no.1. Due to impact, Respondent no.1 fell on the road and sustained injuries. 3. The Respondent no.1 filed the petition under section 166 & 140 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the Respondent no. 2 & 3 herein being the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle and the Appellant herein, as the offending vehicle was insured with them. 4. Upon the petition being filed, summons were sent to the Respondents. The Respondent no.2 who was driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle, in its written statement denied the factum of the accident as well as involvement of offending vehicle in any accident. 5. Appellant/Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 6. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 13,10,650/- along with the interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization. 7. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal perused only the copy of the alleged licence, which was taken into custody by the Police at the time of accident. The tribunal reached at wrong conclusion that licence was valid while during investigation by investigator and in its report and evidence produced before the Tribunal, it was found that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence and the driving licence in question was issued in the name of some Hussain s/o Baralam and not in the name of Girwar i.e. Respondent no.2 and the date of the same was 23.03.03. 8. Even the RTO concerned admitted the fact that the licence in question is not in the name of the Respondent no.2 i.e. Girwar but this aspect has not at all been considered by the Tribunal and neither the Appellant was not given any right of recovery etc. Thus, there is clear violation of insurance policy by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and so the Insurance Company has no liability of any kind for payment to the Respondent no.1/claimant. 9. The impugned order is also unsustainable being arbitrary, and based on no evidence and without consideration and appreciation of the evidence on the record of the case. The compensation of Rs.13,10,650/- along with the interest @ 7% seems to be higher side while, as per the present market scenario and as per RBI guidelines, the interest of 4 % is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Appellant in