New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. Devender Pal Singh and Others

M.L. Mehta, J.—This appeal has been filed by the insurance company against award dated 21st January 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (''the Tribunal'' for short) in claim petition No. 779/2004 filed by Respondent No. 1/claimant for seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in road accident which took place on 27th February, 1997 when his car was struck by the offending vehicle DL 1C 4604 being driven by Respondent No. 2 allegedly in rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was owned by Respondent No. 3 and was insured with the Appellant. The Tribunal vide the impugned award awarded compensation amounting to `39,700/-with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Since the vehicle was insured with the Appellant insurance company, it was directed to pay the awarded compensation.

The appeal is filed by the Appellant/insurance company seeking right of recovery of the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Respondent No. 3. Only ground that was averred and was urged before this Court was that the Respondent No. 2, who was driving the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of accident and thus the same being in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Appellant was not liable to pay the compensation and was entitle to recover the same from the insured Respondent No.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken me through the statement of R3W1 Naresh Chander, LDC, West Zone, Delhi Transport Authority, who had stated about the driving licence in the name of Puneet Sachdev i.e. the Respondent No. 2, (who was driving the offending vehicle) to be valid from 27.02. 1986 to 26.02.1991. A copy of the driving licence was proved as Ex. R3W1/1. The learned Tribunal also recorded a finding in this regard that as per the statement of this witness, the licence was valid till 26.2.1991. However, the learned Tribunal was of the view that since the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was not produced or proved by the Appellant, it could not be proved that there was any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the Appellant was held to be responsible to indemnify the claimant.

Coming back to the testimony of R3W1, it is seen that though the driving licence of Puneet Sachdev (Respondent No. 2) was valid up till 26.02.1991, the witness also stated that he could not say if the licence had been got renewed after 26.2.1991. He further stated that renewal date was given on the back side of the driving licence. It is noted that R3W1 was examined at the behest of the insurance company/Appellant. In his statement, as noted above, he gave indication that renewal date was given on the back side of the driving licence. In any case, the learned Tribunal has also rightly observed that copy of the insurance policy was not properly proved. R3W2, an official of the Appellant company stated that the office copy prepared at the time of issue of original policy is not available in the office. What was placed on record as mark A was stated to be prepared on the basis of the record available with the insurance company. This was not the appropriate mode of proving the insurance policy. It was neither original nor the carbon copy of the original. Not only that, the office record on the basis of which it was stated to have been prepared, was also not produced before the Tribunal. There was no substantive evidence led by the Appellant with regard to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal has rightly not relied upon the said copy Mark A and recorded a finding of fact that the Appellant has not been able to prove the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned award of the Tribunal. The Appeal merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.