Iffco Tokio General Ins Co v. Swaroop Chand And ORS
!
"" # $%
"&!! &
'"
! ((
$%
"&!! &
"" # ) *!! &
'"
! + ,! -- . / 0
1 .
$23 !4!3
, &"" - ! , "
!
/-((
536"!&774!3
, &"" -(( ! "
!
!-
& " ! % ! !-"
, % "" - %&- &
&*- &8%!! !/ &,- ""&9 ,-! 97 & -
8"7 - 4 - %&- & "7 & 98!, ! - , &8 %!!!"&9-! & & -
8"7 - -9 "7 &
8" - & !-3-* - " ! ! 97 & -8 :;
1/ - ,< &
!
"" - 4 (( & 9 ,-! 97 & -8 4%& & " , ! ! '3-! ! <-* & 8
8" - & -8 &3 9 %!! ' 4=4 > 97 & -9 * %- & -
, ! & , '3-!4 %&- & &!
!-8
3&-
-! &" & &
-! &! < "
,&!*-* !-3-* , &!-3& 9 !-" !9, &- ! 7 % ? - -,
-! - - & " % "" %&- & 4 %& & & 8
8" - %!!97 &-9- 9& ! 9! !!%& & & !-3%& !-*3-!4,, -3!-3-*- ! &4 &
-
7 -
!/! -
/
""-*, & -8 &98- ! & - & " 4 & -9 & *-3 & 9,- , , " " !- &! !%(7 ,*4 &4!!- - @
, & 7 ! & ! &3 9 < -
-! - , & ""
,, " " -98- ! & &-9&!""-! & 8 -"- ,97 <-*-
-! - &* , &" 4%& - -8 , !% & - - &* , &! !%&- &- 9 < -
-! - , & ""
, ""7-* 8 -"- ! &4 8 -"- , & !&39""-!
-98- ! & " ! %48
,,;"! , & !9 ' 4 > & !
,
-8 & ! 9
' =04 > ' 4 ; & % -8 - *! & 3 &7%&- &&9!97 &-9 &; ' 4 >--!? 4- -" 3!97 !!
9 & &! ! &!""!-,-8 ;8- - , &7!-" 8
- 8 &- *--*! & -,- 4 -,7-* &-!, 4-! 97 $& $&78 1 7 &- 4 5 % !7 ;&-9- ! :;
1 - 98- ! & - % & , & -8 & &! !%A- :*- - $< - A' 8 -3 !- 1-3 !
4 1
04 $
(4B$+4C%4+- - '%-!- &-! - 8 4 & 7 , &! !& !&39!' (4 >"8 & !-""
,&-*8 4!
, & -8 &-! "
&2!*8 , &B D9$"8 - & ,
!
"
#$ "
!%&%'()*'
, &-
8"74 & &&!4 &98- ! & 3" & "97 & -8 4- % ! & & ! ! % -* 8 , ' =4 > " 8 &
, &- % <-* A- :*- - $< - A' 8 -3!-1-3 !
-98- ! & &4 & -8
-88 & &-!8 -, &*! & !
8 & 9" ! !
! & % & &-!! !%% <-* - 98- ! & & 2!*8 , & B D9 $"8 , !- -!"
97 & -8 - ""- 9- &, ! - 8
, &" 4-8 &4- &-! 4 &! ! &-&!
8" ! C &
! &! !
-
8" ""- - 4%&- &" &! !- ! &3!
!-" 8
- 8 &- *--*4 %&- & 9
8"! &
%
-
8" ""- - -98- ! & 7 4 & -8 &83 &! -8! ' =4 > " & - , & *! & ! -
/4 - & 9 !37
93!97 &-9 & &!-3-*- :;
1/- ,<43 & *& &- -* & - 7&! &-94-%&- &- % ! & & -*-
! & 9 8-" ! ! & -! , & % & &- -,< (
, & -8 4 - 9 4 & 98- ! & - & ,
+, 4 &
-! &! <"
= ! &! ! &-% 74%&- &"
4 &! !%(7 ,*! &
-! &! <" (! &4 & , & -8 &--&-*& & &
-8 &- +-* &
,*8 4, <-*-
-! - &*8 -! 9&, , & -8 ! &-
8"7 ! &2!*8 , &B D9$"8 ,!-- &
+, % & 93 - 8! 97 & -9-"*"& , &2!*8 4-%&- &- &9
!! & & -,- :;
1, 8$&$&781 7 &- 45& % & & ! ! &! ""! - & ,- 8 ;8- - , & 7
!-" 8
-8 &- *--*437,- !&9 < 97 &!
, &-
8"7%!
, & -8 ! - - 2 - 7 98- ! & &7- &"
9 <' =4 >"8 & &- - , & "-- & - &, ! - 8 , & !<"-*-3-% & 9 3-!" 4 &7 , &! !& !9 <' =4 > "8 & C7 <-* &7 , &! !' =4 >"8 &4 !
, & -8 & 98- ! 3-! & %&- & - " ! !&-9 %. ₹
₹
₹
!"
#$# % $&$
#
$'
()
$'
! "
'
'
'$
' '
' '$
*
, & -8 &98- ! & &"
,, " " &; , @- ?-! 9 <-
-! - " !%!<"-*-3-% &* , &! ! - 4 ( 74 & 8 -"- %&- & - 9 ""-! - ! 3 & 8
, , ;" ! , !
-8 ?-! 9 < ' 4 >4 ' 4 > ! ' =04 > ' 4 ; -98- ! & &"" - &-!
- 8 % ! 9 - ! & !
8" - ' =4((4 > & " 8 - ! - & 9 3-! & -
! %- & % ! -
! %- & & % -! !
% 97 & D9$"8 - & ,Kandasami & Ors. (supra) and the same is not disputed before this Court. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.19,55,800/-. E- &" & ,- 4 &- -
- 7%!-* & ,- & , (@ " 84 %&- & , - - 9 - & " 9.
The only issue that now survives for consideration is whether the driving licence of the driver was valid or not and whether the insurance company would be liable to pay the amount or not. Regarding the same, issue no.3 had been framed which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "3.
Whether the respondent no.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? if so its effect? OPR 10.
Under issue no.3, the Tribunal had observed that the driving licence which was possessed by the driver had been duly exhibited as Ex.P3, and the same was a valid driving licence. It was observed that the reliance placed upon the letter issued by the Licensing Authority did not show that the licence was fake, inasmuch as, there was no endorsement of the Licensing Authority to say that the licence was fake and it was only
stated that the record had been misplaced and it was observed that the fact that record had been misplaced would not mean that the licence was fake. 11.
This Court is of the opinion that once the licence had been duly exhibited as Ex.P3, then, onus was on the insurance company to show that the same was fake and forged and there was no such evidence to show that the said licence was fake and forged. It could not be disputed before this Court that even the letter written by the Licensing Authority did not state that the licence was fake and only stated that the record had been misplaced and thus, the Tribunal was right in observing that merely because the record had been misplaced, it cannot be stated that licence was fake. The findings of the Tribunal on the said issue are upheld. Accordingly, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation. 12.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company i.e., FAO-174-2018 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants i.e., FAO5507-2018 is partly allowed and the award dated 23.10.2017 is modified to the extent that IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay additional compensation of Rs.19,55,800/- & -8 *%- &- & , (@"8, 8 &! ,,--* & -8" - - -- - - %- &-"- ! ,-;%<, 8 !7
!" #$%&'() +
," E& &"<-*> ! )>5 E& &"
9 )>5