Dismissed¶¶36

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeeta Rawat & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Mar 2026FAO/347/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO 347/2016; Delhi High Court; Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Rawat & Ors; recovery rights against insured/owner; fake driving licence; wilful breach of policy conditions; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297; Section 149(2)(a)(ii); Commissioner Employees Compensation; compensation Rs. 7,84,485/- with 12% interest from 03.02.2010; death of driver Vijay Kumar; RTV bus DL-1V-7788; accident 03.02.2010 Anand Vihar; substituted service by publication; CM APPL. 58730/2024; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; its claim to recovery rights against respondent No. 3 was rejected, the Commissioner's award to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stands, and the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. ¶¶36

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sangeeta Rawat & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights against respondent No. 3 (owner of the offending vehicle) on account of the driving licence of the deceased allegedly being fake.

¶¶22

Court's answer

Tested against the Swaran Singh principle, the appellant merely asserted that the deceased's driving licence was found fake upon verification from the concerned Transport Authority; apart from that assertion, it placed no material on record demonstrating that respondent No. 3 had knowingly employed a person not duly licensed or had failed to undertake reasonable verification of the deceased's driving licence before permitting him to drive.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any evidence indicative of a conscious or wilful breach of the policy conditions on the part of respondent No. 3, the mere fact that the licence was subsequently found to be fake would not, by itself, entitle the appellant to recovery rights against the insured.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

Consequently, no ground is made out to grant recovery rights to the appellant against respondent No. 3.ratio¶¶35
This Court otherwise finds no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Commissioner with respect to the accident having arisen out of and in the course of employment, or in the quantum of compensation awarded.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi HC, FAO 347/2016 (order dt. 09.03.2026, Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) — Appeal of Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd against the order dated 22.01.2016 (rectified 03.05.2016) of the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, which awarded respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Rs. 7,84,485/- with interest at 12% per annum from 03.02.2010 for the death of driver Vijay Kumar, whose RTV bus (DL-1V-7788, owned by respondent No. 3) overturned near Deepak Memorial Hospital, Anand Vihar, Delhi on 03.02.2010. By notice dated 22.02.2017 the challenge had been confined to the limited question of recovery rights against respondent No. 3 on the ground that the deceased's driving licence was found fake upon verification. Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 — under which mere absence, falsity or invalidity of a licence is no defence and the insurer must further prove the insured's wilful breach, i.e., failure to exercise reasonable care regarding licensing — the Court found that, beyond its bare assertion, the appellant had placed no material showing respondent No. 3 knowingly employed a person not duly licensed or failed to undertake reasonable verification of the licence. In the absence of evidence of a conscious or wilful breach, the subsequent discovery that the licence was fake did not by itself entitle the appellant to recovery rights. Confirming that there was no infirmity in the Commissioner's findings on the accident arising out of and in the course of employment or on quantum, the Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. (CM APPL. 58730/2024 seeking substituted service of respondent No. 3 was disposed of in view of the Joint Registrar (Judicial)'s order dated 29.01.2026 recording service by publication.)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 347/2016

¶4

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

SANGEETA RAWAT & ORS .....Respondents

¶8

Through: None

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶11

O R D E R % 09.03.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 58730/2024 (seeking substituted service of respondent No.3)

¶13

In the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), it is observed that respondent No.3 stands duly served through substituted service by way of publication.

¶14

In view of the above, the present application is disposed of.

¶15

FAO 347/2016

¶16

Pertinently, on 22.02.2017, this Court observed that no infirmity could be found in the findings returned by the learned Commissioner with respect to the existence of the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.3 as well as the quantum of compensation awarded. Accordingly, notice in the appeal was directed to be issued only to respondent No.3 on the limited aspect as to whether the appellant would be entitled to recovery rights against the said respondent.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:23:09

¶19

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.01.2016 and the rectification order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,84,485/-, along with interest at 12% per annum with effect from 03.02.2010 till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the death of Vijay Kumar in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

¶20

As per claim application, the deceased Vijay Kumar was stated to be employed as a driver on RTV Bus bearing registration No. DL-1V-7788 owned by respondent No. 3. On 03.02.2010, while driving the said vehicle near Deepak Memorial Hospital, Anand Vihar, Delhi , the vehicle overturned, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased.

¶21

As noted above, the challenge in present appeal is limited. In this regard, it is contended that the driving licence of the deceased was found to be fake upon verification from the concerned Transport Authority and therefore, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, entitling the appellant to recovery rights against respondent No. 3, the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶22

In the aforesaid backdrop, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights against respondent No. 3 on account of the driving licence of the deceased allegedly being fake.

¶23

The legal position governing the issue is well settled. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh¹ , the Supreme Court held that the mere absence, invalidity, or even falsity of a driving licence would not, by itself,

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:23:09

¶26

absolve the insurer of its liability. The insurer must further establish that the insured committed a wilful breach of the policy conditions, inasmuch as the employer failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The relevant extract is herein below:

¶27

<110

¶28

xxx

¶29

(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.=

¶30

Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principle, the appellant has merely asserted that the driving licence of the deceased was found to be fake upon verification from the concerned Transport Authority. However, apart from the said assertion, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that respondent No. 3 had knowingly employed a person not duly licensed or had failed to undertake reasonable verification of the driving licence of the deceased before permitting him to drive the vehicle.

¶31

In the absence of any evidence indicative of a conscious or wilful breach on the part of respondent No. 3, the mere fact that the licence was subsequently found to be fake would not, by itself, entitle the appellant to recovery rights against the insured.

¶32

1 (2004) 3 SCC 297

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:23:09

¶35

Consequently, no ground is made out to grant recovery rights to the appellant against respondent No. 3.

¶36

This Court otherwise finds no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Commissioner with respect to the accident having arisen out of and in the course of employment or the quantum of compensation awarded. 11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶38

MARCH 9, 2026 kb

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:23:09

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeeta Rawat & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangeeta Rawat & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Ahuja & Anr. Vs Divya Arora Ahuja

Chunni Lal & Ors. Vs Union of India

Shiv Kumar Vs Union of India

Gurdhyan Bhola and Anr. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors.

M/S Ttk Healthcare Limited Vs Sharad Tandon and Anr.

Jatin Bhola and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.