Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Monica Gulati and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2014FAO/4990/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal by the insurer challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award was dismissed. The Court held that the insurer failed to prove the driver lacked a valid license or the vehicle lacked a permit, as evidence establishing the permit's validity was adduced and remained uncontroverted by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no substantive relief granted to the appellant.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No. 4990 of 2014(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 4990 of 2014(O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2014

¶5

Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited

¶6

......Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Monica Gulati & others ......Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶10

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶15

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

¶16

Vide impugned award, the Tribunal accepted the claim petition filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 claiming compensation on account of death of Dr. Raman Pal Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on the intervening night of 21^st and 22^nd September, 2009 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5 while driving offending vehicle No.CH-02-2264 owned by respondent No.4 and which was insured with the appellant.

¶17

The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition and were proceeded against ex parte.

¶18

The appellant contested the claim petition denying the factum of accident. However, it was admitted that vehicle in question was insured. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.5 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being plied without permit

¶19

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

FAO No. 4990 of 2014(O&M)

¶21

¶22

and there was a collusion between the claimants and owner/driver of the offending vehicle.

¶23

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

¶24

framed:-

¶25

“1. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding valid driving licence?OPR

¶26

2. Whether the owner i.e. Respondent no.1 has violated the terms of insurance policy?OPR

¶27

3. Whether Dr. Raman Pal Singh died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent no.2 Madan?OPP

¶28

4. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation for death of Dr. Raman Pal Singh, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP

¶29

5. Relief.”

¶30

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5 while driving the offending vehicle and held that the claimants were entitled to a total sum of ` 46,26,609/- as compensation.

¶31

It may also be noticed that the appellant-Insurance Company was allowed to take all the defences which were available to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle but it had failed to establish that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. Despite the fact that the onus to prove such an issue was upon the appellant, no evidence was brought on record. The Tribunal further found that the vehicle was having a valid permit.

¶32

Still not satisfied, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned award.

¶33

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶34

FAO No. 4990 of 2014(O&M)

¶35

¶36

At the outset, it may be noticed that no challenge has been made to the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal.

¶37

Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the vehicle was not having a valid permit as the said vehicle could not have been plied in Punjab, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment. It may be noticed that Ex.R-2 is the National Permit which has been issued by the State Transport Authority, UT Chandigarh, vide which the offending vehicle was authorised to drive throughout the territory of India including Punjab. Not only this, RW-5 Harinder Singh, who is an official working with State Transport Authority, UT Chandigarh, has categorically stated that Ex.R-1 has authorised the vehicle to drive within India including Punjab. In view of the aforesaid evidence which has not been controverted, the argument raised is liable to be rejected.

¶38

Faced with this, counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to argue that it was the owner's duty to produce the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and this omission on behalf of owner himself proves the fact that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and thus, the best possible evidence has been withheld and an adverse inference is to be drawn against the owner/driver of the offending vehicle that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. However, it may be noticed, that the issue with regard to onus to prove that the driving licence was fake, was upon the appellant. It was for the appellant to produce evidence in this regard. It was for the appellant to summon the records or call the driver of the vehicle in question in witness box. Having failed to prove these issues, no such argument can be raised on behalf of the appellant.

¶39

Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to argue that there was a considerable delay in recording the

¶40

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶41

FAO No. 4990 of 2014(O&M)

¶42

¶43

DDR and thus, the same does not prove the accident in question and there are contradictions. The version recorded in the DDR cannot be taken as gospel truth and recording of DDR is only for initiation of legal action and nothing more. Not only this, the accident in question has been duly proved from the testimony of various witnesses who have stepped into the witness box and further the fact remains that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to rebut the aforesaid evidence which has come on record.

¶44

No other argument has been raised.

¶45

In view thereof, this appeal is without any merit. Dismissed.

¶46

July 21, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE

¶47

Saini Pushpinder 2014.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Monica Gulati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Monica Gulati and 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

Hukam Chand Vs Nafe Singh & Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Harjit Kaur and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Veena Sharma and Ors.

Shobha Rani Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhani Sahai and Others Vs Chhote Lal and Others

Gurmail Singh Vs Ajmer Singh and Ors.