Disposed

Iffco-Tokia General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munna @ Daud & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Aug 2018MAC.APP./240/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified awards by holding that recovery rights vest with the Insurer. Liability is shifted to the driver and owner of the insured vehicle where the driver lacked a valid license for the goods vehicle, despite the Insurer having disbursement liability.

What did the court decide?

Liability to pay compensation granted to driver and owner of insured vehicle; recovery rights granted to appellant Insurer; statutory deposit refunded to appellant.

Iffco-Tokia General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Munna @ Daud & Ors. — Insurance | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: August 01, 2018

¶3

+ MAC. APP. 240/2013

¶4

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhiushek Kumar Gola, Advocate Versus MUNNA @ DAUD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Nemo.

¶5

- MAC. APP. 262/2013

¶6

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhiushek Kumar Gola, Advocate Versus AZAD KHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Nemo.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

In a vehicular accident, which took place on 23^rd March, 2010, Munna @ Daud, s/o Ramajan Ali and Azad Khan s/o Munshi Khan, were grievously injured and they had sought compensation on account of injuries suffered by them. Vide separate Awards of even date i.e. of 2^nd January, 2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

MAC.APP. 240/2013 MAC.APP. 262/2013

¶12

to as the “Tribunal”) , granted compensation of 5,85,200/- with interest @7.5% to injured _Munna @ Daud_ and compensation of 1,26,031/- with interest @7.5% p.a. to injured Azad Khan while holding appellant- Insurer liable to pay the awarded compensation.

¶13

In the above captioned two appeals, the challenge is to the aforesaid impugned Awards on the liability aspect only, therefore, the facts of this case and the breakup of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, need not be adverted to. The driver and owner of vehicle in question had neither contested before the Tribunal nor has before this Court. Since these appeals arise out of one accident, therefore, with the consent of counsel for appellant, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶14

Counsel for appellant- Insurer assails the impugned Awards on the ground that the Tribunal has saddled Insurer with the liability to pay the awarded compensation on the ground that Notice under Order XII, Rule 8 CPC was not issued to driver and owner of the insured vehicle. It is pointed out by counsel for Insurer that witness from the concerned Licensing Authority had come forward to prove that one of the driving licenses of the driver of insured vehicle was found to be fake and other driving license was for light motor vehicles (NT) and motor cycle only. It is pointed out that license for light motor vehicle was specifically made for Non Transport Vehicles, whereas driver of the insured vehicle was driving a light goods vehicle, which had met with the accident. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for Insurer that the Tribunal has erred in distinguishing Supreme Court’s decision in Oriental Insurance

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

MAC.APP. 240/2013 MAC.APP. 262/2013

¶17

Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, wherein it has been clearly declared that if the driver does not hold a valid and effective license for driving a goods vehicle, then it tantamounts to breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and so, recovery rights were granted to the Insurer. Thus, it is submitted that in light of Supreme Court’s decision in Angad Kol (Supra) , recovery rights ought to be granted to Insurer.

¶18

Upon hearing and on perusal of evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that Supreme Court in Angad Kol (Supra) has categorically declared that recovery rights ought to be granted, if driver of the insured vehicle does not hold valid and effective driving license to drive the goods vehicle. The Tribunal has erred in distinguishing the Supreme Court’s decision in Angad Kol (Supra) . Accordingly, impugned Awards are modified to the extent that the liability to pay the compensation is of the driver and owner of the insured vehicle. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the awarded compensation has been already disbursed to the Injured persons. Resultantly, recovery rights are granted to appellant- Insurer to recover the awarded amount with interest from the owner and driver of insured vehicle in question. 5. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are disposed of. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant- Insurer .

¶19

(SUNIL GAUR)

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

AUGUST 01, 2018 r

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

MAC.APP. 240/2013 MAC.APP. 262/2013

Iffco-Tokia General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munna @ Daud & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco-Tokia General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munna @ Daud & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram General Insurace Co. Ltd. Vs Renu Sharma & Ors.

Renu Sharma & Ors. Vs Angrej Singh & Anr. (Shriram General Ins Co. Ltd. )

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nisha Kapoor & Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vijay Singh (Father of Deceased) & Ors.

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Azad Khan & Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nidhi Sadh & Ors.