Dismissed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jitender & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Nov 2017MAC.APP./385/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held that since a valid national permit covering Delhi was proved, the insurer's plea regarding unclear permit ownership failed. The remaining insurance amount was directed to be released to the claimant.

What did the court decide?

The admitted amount was directed to be released to the claimant; balance refunded to insurer after award satisfaction.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jitender & Ors. — Insurance | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~R-487

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Decided on: 15^th November, 2017

¶4

MAC APPEAL 385/2012 and CM 6611/2012 (stay) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi and Ms. Komal Dhingra, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

JITENDER & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

By judgment dated 01.02.2012, in the accident claim case (MACT 469/08/06) of the first respondent (claimant) instituted on 29.03.2006, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded compensation in his favour for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 01.02.2006 involving negligent driving of a truck bearing registration no.HR-05GA-0284 admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant (insurer).

¶10

The insurer while contesting the case had raised the plea of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that there was no valid permit. It led evidence in support of the said contention but the tribunal rejected the said plea taking note of

¶11

MAC Appeal No.385/2012

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

the fact that a valid national permit existed in respect of the vehicle which would cover Delhi where the accident had occurred, this on the basis of evidence of Sanjay Trigunayak (R3W2), an official from the office of Road Transport Authority, Saharanpur, U.P.

¶14

By the appeal at hand, the insurance company questions the liability fastened upon it contending that there was no clarity as to whether the permit was in the name of the registered owner or not. This plea must be rejected. The fact remains that it was duly proved that a national permit covering the Union territory of Delhi had been taken out. It was the burden on the insurance company to prove that it was not issued at the instance or in the name of the insured /the owner of the vehicle.

¶15

The appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

By order dated 16.04.2012, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General. By order dated 19.03.2013, sixty percent (60%) was permitted to be released to the claimant. The balance shall also now be released to the claimant.

¶17

The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance company after proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.

¶18

The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above terms.

¶19

R.K.GAUBA, J.

¶20

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 yg

¶21

MAC Appeal No.385/2012

¶22

Page 2 of 2

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jitender & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jitender & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Suresh Wati Vs Ramesh Walia & Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Majnu & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Himayu Ali & Anr.

Commandant Drdo Vs Suchitra Gupta

Orietal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Zahid Hasan & Ors.

Som Prakash Sharma Vs Rohit Yadav& Anr.