New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Mohd. Iqlam & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. rs/Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.379/2008 & CM No.9282/2008 % Judgment reserved on: 25th September, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 24th October, 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. J-129, Kirti Nagar New Delhi-110015 ….Appellant Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Adv. Versus 1. Mohd. Iqlam S/o. Sh. Mohd. Sahadat R/o. C-37, Chandu Nagar Near Bihari Masjid Karawal Nagar Road Delhi 2. Mohd. Aftab Alam S/o. Sh. Mohd. Tasleem R/o. 66 B, Cement Siding Shakur Basti Delhi-110034 3. Mohd. Fahim S/o. Khurshid Alam 252, T Huts, Cement Siding Shakur Basti New Delhi …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 appellant/New India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as "Act") challenging the award dated 1st April, 2008 passed by Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Presiding Officer, MACT (for short as "Tribunal"), Delhi. 2. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of award (excepting for the periods not specifically allowed) to the injured towards the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. 3. Brief facts of this case are that respondent No.1/Mohd. Iqlam, on the date of accident i.e. 31st July, 2006, was working as a labourer in vehicle No. DL-1- ID-5300, which is a truck. This truck was overloaded and when it reached at Wazirabad Road near Rajiv Nagar Bus Stand, all of a sudden, the putta of kamani of front tyre had broken and the offending vehicle fell down and respondent No.1 received grievous injuries on his left leg and body. He has attributed the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. 4. Respondent No.2/Mohd. Aftab Alam, is the driver of offending truck, whereas respondent No.3/Mohd. Fahim, is the owner and the offending truck was insured with appellant. 5. The driver and owner of the offending truck filed their common written statement in which they denied the factum of accident stating that no accident was caused by respondent No.2 on the given date, time and place. 6. Appellant/Insurance Company in its written statement has admitted the factum of insurance. However, it is stated that it has no knowledge about the alleged accident and the manner in which the accident took place. 7. Further, a preliminary objection has taken by the appellant in its written statement that at any stage of proceedings if it appears and this court is satisfied that there is collusion between claimant and owner/driver or they failed to contest the claim on merit, then appellant shall take over the defence of the respondents 2 & 3 herein, under Section 170 of the Act without the prejudice to the provision of Section 149(2) of the Act. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was overloaded with rice with weight of 9000 kg whereas, as detailed in the insurance policy, the unladen weight of the vehicle was 6800 kg. only, and thus there was violation of permit. 9. The Tribunal has discussed the provisions of Section 66, 86 and 88 of the Act without considering the ground of the appellant with regard to the overloading of the vehicle. 10. Other contention is that the Tribunal has erred in holding that inspite of the fact that there being violation of permit as admittedly, annual authorization fee of Rs.1,000/- has not been paid but because the permit was not cancelled, the insurance company is liable. It is stated that National Permit issued from 29.9.2004 to 28.9.2009 for five years is not valid because, for a national permit to be valid it is mandatory that the authorization fee of atleast four states including the state for which the permit was being issued vide Section 88 (14)(b)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act was