CASE TITTLE: SANDEEP YADAV. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
CASE NO: MAC.APP. 39/2022& CM APPL. 7486/2022
ORDER ON: 20 May 2024
QUORUM: . JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present appeal filed by the appellant, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the impugned judgment-cum award dated passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the learned Tribunal granted recovery rights to the respondent/Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the insured-owner.
The facts leading to the appeal in question is that, on 07.11.2013, about 10:00 PM, the deceased-Brajanand @ Birjoo was going by his bicycle and when he reached near Mayawati Bus Stand, Baghpat, U.P., suddenly a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner by Rajesh Kumar/respondent No.1, came at a high speed and hit the bicycle of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and was taken to the District hospital, but was declared brought dead. Subsequently, FIR was lodged against the respondent No.1/driver4 with Police Station Baraut under Sections 279/304A/427 of the IPC The respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle, were served but failed to contest the case and were proceeded ex-parte, Further, on appreciation of the evidence led on the record, the claim petition was allowed and the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased were granted a total compensation of Rs. 16,14,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization The impugned judgment-cum-award has been assailed inter alia on the grounds that the onus is upon the insurance company to satisfy the court that there has been a violation of the insurance policy. Further, the respondent No.3/insurance company failed to prove that the licence was fake and also the fact that it was not issued by the concerned authority.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 talks about appeals
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:
Learned counsel for the appellant/registered owner, challenging the grant of recovery rights to the insurance company, alludes to the aspect that once the driver has produced a licence, which appears to be genuine on the face of it, then the owner is not liable and, in this regard, reliance was placed upon the judicial precidents, Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, relying upon contested that the appellant/owner was aware of the fake licence possessed by the driver and still permitted him to drive the vehicle. Further, the registered owner never disputed the fact before the learned Tribunal that the driving licence was fake.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent/Insurance Company through their counsel denied all the allegations challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as also the fact that the driver was not possessing a Driving Licence to drive the vehicle. Further the counsel also contested that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit and other relevant documents and thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the court observed that the decision by the learned Tribunal qua the grant of recovery rights as against the present appellant/registered owner of the offending vehicle, cannot be sustained in law. It would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the learned Tribunal while granting the recovery rights to the Insurance Company, The court further observed that the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that he did whatever was in his control and he had produced the driving license but was unable to produce the driver as he had no control over him, cannot be brushed aside. the court further opined that There is no evidence led by the respondent/insurance company that the appellant, being the registered owner, was aware that the driving license of the respondent No.1/driver was forged and fabricated. Further, there is no evidence on the record with respect to the fact that the appellant/owner, despite knowing that such driving license was fake and fabricated, allowed the respondent No.1/driver to drive the offending vehicle. The court further observed that respondent/insurance company was duty bound to lead evidence on the aspect that the appellant was aware that such driving license was fake and yet, he chose to handover the control of the offending vehicle to his driver. In all probabilities, the appellant bonafidely believed the driving license to be genuine.The court further observed that, It is well settled that the registered owner is not supposed to rush to the respective RTO and ascertain the genuineness of the driving license produced by the driver. The driver had probably been driving the offending vehicle for a long time to the satisfaction of the appellant/owner. The court further observed that the insurance company could have also summoned and examined the registered owner to prove its defence, which it did not do. In this regard, reliance was placed on judicial decisions, therefore, the court further In view of the foregoing discussion, the court allowed the present appeal and the impugned judgment-cum-award passed by the learned Tribunal qua the grant of recovery rights to the respondent/insurance company against the appellant/registered owner and hereby set aside the present petition. However, the respondent/insurance company shall be at liberty to proceed for recovery of the amount of compensation paid to the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased from the driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.The court further disposed off the present appeal, along with the pending application.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed By: Sowmya.R
