Allowed

Niacl v. Saroj Wati Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Mar 2014FAO/1195/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurer's appeal, holding the driver's license was not genuine as it did not exist in the DTO Sirsa records. The court maintained the insurer's liability to pay the assessed compensation but granted a right of recovery against the owner and driver for breach of policy terms.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; insurer's liability confirmed but right of recovery against owner and driver modified into the award.

Niacl Vs Saroj Wati Devi — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

FAO No.1195 of 1993

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1195 of 1993 Date of Decision.24.03.2014

¶5

New India Assurance Company Limited

¶6

......Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sarojwati Devi and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

None for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

The insurance company is in appeal on the issue of liability. The contention is that the particular driving licence produced by the driver was not genuine. I had allowed for additional evidence to be given, convinced as I was, that the insurer did not have adequate opportunity to summon the original records from the DTO Sirsa. The clerk from the DTO Sirsa was examined as RW1. The original register had been brought and he speaks from the record that on 16.07.1990, the date when the licence Ex.R1 was said to have been issued, the serial number from their register began only with 44334 and ended with 44369. There was no issue of driving licence with the particulars as found in Ex.R1. The licence produced by the driver cannot, therefore, be genuine. I find evidence of the witness to be adequate and sufficient

¶19

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.28 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

FAO No.1195 of 1993

¶21

-2-

¶22

to hold that the driving licence as produced by the driver was not genuine. The insurance company would still be liable for the compensation what has been assessed but it will have right of recovery against the owner and driver for breach of terms of policy. The owner and driver have not been represented in spite of notice having been served. I, therefore, modify the award to allow for a right of recovery against the owner and driver after satisfying the award in favour of the claimants.

¶23

The appeal is allowed in favour of the insurer to the above

¶24

extent.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

March 24, 2014 Pankaj*

¶27

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.28 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Niacl v. Saroj Wati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niacl v. Saroj Wati Devi

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

Satya Devi and Ors. Vs Rajbir Singh and Ors.

Devinder Kumar Vs Amit Kumar and Anr.

Harjinder Kaur Vs Kuldeep Singh and Ors.

Videya Devi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Surinder Kumar Mehta Vs Puneet Jindal and Others

Sarwan Kumar and Anr. Vs Kuldip Kaur