This appeal challenged an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding an Insurance Company liable for compensation. The Court held the appeal dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the driver lacked a valid license and the insured was aware of such fact.
The appeal was dismissed and the award of compensation remains in force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
UNREPORTED
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
LALITA YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None
% Date of Decision : August 04, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.08.2003
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.529/97.
FAO 692/2003 Page 1 of 8
bicycle, the said vehicle No.DAR-302, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver (the respondent No.5 herein) dashed against the said cycle causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The learned Tribunal by its judgment dated 02.08.2003 passed an award in the sum of ` 4,89,600/- (including the interim award) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4 and against the respondent No.5-driver, the respondent No.6-owner and the appellant-Insurance Company, and directed the appellant as the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the entire amount of compensation to the respondents No.1 to 4. The learned Tribunal, however, did not accept the plea of the appellant-Insurance Company
Page 2 of 8
FAO 692/2003
that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and held that the appellant-Insurance Company was not entitled to recover the award amount from the insured.
FAO 692/2003 Page 3 of 8
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company was heard and the records scrutinized.
FAO 692/2003 Page 4 of 8
postal receipts whereof were exhibited as Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3 and the UPC was Ex.R3W1/4. He stated that the notice issued to the owner had been received back unserved and the returned envelope was Ex.R3W1/5. Copy of the notice was Ex.R3W1/6. In his cross-examination, R3W1 unequivocally admitted that he did not know whether the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/6 had been served upon the driver.
FAO 692/2003 Page 5 of 8
also noted that the appellant-Insurance Company deliberately chose not to serve the aforesaid notice on the owner at the address mentioned in the insurance policy as 6/91, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi, but instead issued notice to him at 5-C-4, Railway Colony, East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. When the notice issued at the latter address was received back unserved, no efforts were made to serve a fresh notice at the address mentioned in the insurance policy. Hence, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to recover the awarded amount from the owner.
the accident. Indisputably, the driver was charge-sheeted under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for not possessing a
FAO 692/2003 Page 6 of 8
driving licence, however, the Tribunal has rightly held that this does not necessarily show that he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at all at the time of the accident. It may be that he was not in possession of the driving licence at the time of the accident and he failed to produce the same before the police. The onus to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of the accident was on the appellant, which it failed to discharge. A specific query was put by me to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the driver had been indicted for not possessing the driving licence under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but no reply to the said query could be given by the learned counsel.
FAO 692/2003 Page 7 of 8
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE)
August 04, 2011 km
Page 8 of 8
FAO 692/2003
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant-Insurance Company discharged the onus of proving the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
Whether the insured was aware that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence.
Whether the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was properly served upon the driver and the owner.
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Lalita Yadav
Reva Khetrapal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
