The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Anita & ORS.

$~R-150 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 30th August, 2017 + MAC APPEAL 638/2009 and CM 18958/2009 and 18960/2009 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Sreenath S., Advocate versus ANITA & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv. for R-6

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1.

By the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2009 on accident claim case (claim petition no.64/2004) of the first to fourth respondents (collectively, the claimants), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded compensation on the basis of findings returned that Ram Kumar, the husband of the first respondent, an earning hand for the family on which the other claimants depended, had died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 23.01.2004 due to the negligent driving of a bus bearing registration no.DL-1P-7109 which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant / insurance company (insurer).

2.

The Tribunal awarded compensation and called upon the appellant to pay the same to the claimants rejecting its plea of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that MAC Appeal No.638/2009

the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the fifth respondent herein was not holding valid or effective driving licence. 3.

By the appeal at hand, the insurer reiterates its plea for recovery rights referring in this context to the evidence of its witnesses V.D. Talwar (R3W1), Pan Singh Rawat (R3W2), Pushpa Khubchandani (R3W3) and Great Walia (R3W4). The second and fourth above mentioned witnesses were officials from the office of Regional Transport Officer at Haldwani and Kanakpura District Champawat in the State of Uttarakhand. The driver had relied upon a driving licence (Ex. PW4/A) which was issued from another authority at Tanakpur in District Nainital of the said State. R3W2 during his cross-examination admitted that the said licence had been issued by the Tanakpur authority. On the basis of such evidence, the tribunal held that the insurance company had failed to prove the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4.

The finding returned by the tribunal is based on correct reading of the evidence and, therefore, does not call for any interference. 5.

The appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed. The pending applications also stand dismissed.

6.

The statutory deposit shall be refunded after proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

AUGUST 30, 2017 yg MAC Appeal No.638/2009