Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Mr.Arvinder Kaur & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Aug 2011MAC.APP./32/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi heard a recall application challenging a Single Judge order that granted an insurance company recovery rights against the insured vehicle owner. The Single Judge had upheld that the driver used a license valid for private goods vehicles but not commercial transport vehicles. The court dismissed the recall application as devoid of substance and a belated attempt to play frau

What did the court decide?

The connected applications, including the application for recall of the Single Judge order dated 05.08.2011, were dismissed as devoid of substance.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Mr.Arvinder Kaur & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

$~42

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAC.APP. 32/2006

¶4

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD

¶5

..... Appellant

¶6

Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

MR.ARVINDER KAUR & ORS.

¶9

..... Respondent Through Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv. for R-4

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA O R D E R % 17.02.2016

¶11

CMNo.15014/2012 (for recall of order dated 05.08.2011), CMNo.15015/2012 (delay in filing application No.15014/2012), CMNo.15016/2012 (for stay of order dated 05.08.2011), CMNo.16309/2012 (for stay of proceedings before MACT) & CMNo.2473/2014 (for change of prayer clause)

¶12

The claim petition under sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) was brought by Arvinder Kaur and Gurdev Kaur before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 31.03.2004, registered as suit No.60/2004, seeking compensation on account of death of Upkar Singh in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.11.2003 involving, inter alia , a motor vehicle No.DL 1L

¶13

MAC APP. No.32/2006

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

D 7809, described in the proceedings as the offending vehicle. The applicant concededly is the owner of M/s Nagar Agencies which is the registered owner of the said offending vehicle. The registered owner through it proprietor Sanjay Nagar was impleaded as party respondent No.2 in the claim proceedings, in addition to New India Assurance Company Ltd. with which the vehicle was insured against third party risk for the period in question. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 23.08.2005, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.8,43,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing petition (31.03.2004). The insurance company was directed to pay the compensation observing that it had failed to establish its defence of breach of policy condition. It is noted that the contention urged in that regard by the insurance company stated that Pradeep Chaudhary, who was concededly driving the relevant vehicle at that time, was not holding a valid driving license and was not permitted to drive the offending vehicle. This contention was repelled by the Tribunal.

¶16

In MAC.APP.No.32/2006 the insurance company pressed for recovery rights reiterating the contention that the driver was allowed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle to drive it even though he was in possession of driving license which was good for LMV (NT) and not for commercial vehicles. This contention of the appellant insurance company was upheld and by judgment dated 05.08.2011 of a learned Single Judge of this Court the appeal was allowed and the insurance company was granted recovery rights, inter alia , against the applicant.

¶17

MAC APP. No.32/2006

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

By application styled as one moved for recall of the order (CM 15014/2012), the applicant contends that the said order was obtained after playing fraud and misleading the court. The application was moved with a delay of 337 days and, thus, with an application for condonation of delay (CM No.15015/2012). During the arguments it was submitted that the appeal was taken up suddenly and without opportunity to the applicant to present his side of the case.

¶20

It is noted that the appeal had been admitted and directed to come up on its own turn on 01.07.2009 in the category of appeals of the insurance company for recovery rights. The appeal, having been shown in the category of regular matters, was taken up in its own turn on 05.08.2011. It was the duty and obligation of the applicant to appear and assist the court at the time it was heard.

¶21

Even otherwise, there is no substance in the contention urged at the hearing that the vehicle in question was never used as a goods carriage vehicle. It has been argued that the vehicle was procured only for use as a private vehicle and, thus, the ground on which the recovery rights have been granted cannot hold good. The description “transport vehicle” is defined by Section 2 (47) of the MV Act to mean public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or private service vehicle. It is not disputed that the driving license of the person found driving the vehicle was not valid for the purposes of a transport vehicle.

¶22

MAC APP. No.32/2006

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

Thus, the application for recall of the judgment dated 05.08.2011 is devoid of substance. The same with connected applications moved by the applicant are dismissed.

¶25

R.K.GAUBA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 VLD

¶27

MAC APP. No.32/2006

¶28

Page 4 of 4

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Mr.Arvinder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Mr.Arvinder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Vs CBI

P.K.Gupta Vs C.B.I.

Inderjeet Singh (in J.C.) Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rahuljee & Company P.Ltd. Now Kmg International Ltd. Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I & Ors.

Shilpa @ Shipa Vs Navin Gupta

Shilpa @ Shipa Vs Navin Gupta