MAC.APP./3/2010 of HIRA LAL Vs LT COL AK DHIMRI & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 3/2010

Date of decision: 13[th] September, 2012

HIRA LAL

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Peeush Sharma, Advocate.

versus

LT. COL. A.K. DHIMRI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr.Amit Gaur, Advocate for R-3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.By virtue of this Appeal, the Appellant Hira Lal impugns judgment dated 10[th] May, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding compensation of `10,00,000/- in favour of the Claimant, the Respondent Insurance Company was granted rights to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 10[th] May, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding compensation of `10,00,000/- in favour of the Claimant, the Respondent Insurance Company was granted rights to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

2.In MAC APPL. No.359/2007, titled ‘National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lt. Col. A.K.Dimri & Ors.’ filed by the Respondent Insurance Company, the amount of compensation has been reduced from `10,00,000/- to `5,21,000/-. Lt. Col. A.K.Dimri & Ors.’ filed by the Respondent Insurance Company, the amount of compensation has been reduced from `10,00,000/- to `5,21,000/-.

3.During the inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant (the owner) gave reply to the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC served by the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company. He also sent copy of the driving license to the counsel. The Appellant filed his affidavit Ex. R1W1/A gave reply to the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC served by the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company. He also sent copy of the driving license to the counsel. The Appellant filed his affidavit Ex. R1W1/A

by way of his evidence. He stated that at the time of employment, the driver Fateh Khan had valid driving licence. He took the driving test of the driver and was satisfied about the driving skills of the driver and this part of the Appellant’s testimony was not challenged in cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that the driving licence was fabricated.

4.The Respondent Insurance Company preferred not to even verify the genuineness of the driving licence, copy of which was filed by the Appellant along with the Appeal. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 12[th] January, 2010 verification report dated 5[th] September, 2011 was filed genuineness of the driving licence, copy of which was filed by the Appellant along with the Appeal. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 12[th] January, 2010 verification report dated 5[th] September, 2011 was filed by the investigator stating that the licence is not genuine.

5.The Respondent Insurance Company failed to prove willful and conscious breach of the terms of policy and was, therefore, not entitled to recovery rights. (United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338; National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 and judgment of this Court in Sanjay v. Suresh Chand & Ors., FAO 445/2000, decided on 03.08.2012). breach of the terms of policy and was, therefore, not entitled to recovery rights. (United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338; National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 and judgment of this Court in Sanjay v. Suresh Chand & Ors., FAO 445/2000, decided on 03.08.2012).

6.The Appeal, therefore, has to be allowed and the impugned order to the extent granting recovery rights against the Appellant is set aside. extent granting recovery rights against the Appellant is set aside.

7.Statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant.

8.The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

9.Pending Applications stand disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012/v

G.P. MITTAL (JUDGE) (JUDGE)