United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Bhagwan Dass & Ors.

Present : Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Sihota, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI K.C.PURI. J. By this common order, I intend to dispose of FAO No. 1227 of 1997 United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Bhagwan Dass and others and FAO No.1180 of 1997 United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Ramesh Kumar and others, as these appeals arise from the same incident/Award. For convenience facts are being taken from FAO No.1227 of 1997. FAO No. 1227 of 1997 2 Appellants, in the above mentioned appeals, prayed for setting aside the award dated 28.3.1997 passed by Shri N.S.Ahlawat, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad vide which compensation amount was granted to the claimants. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 7.3.1993 the petitioner Ramesh Kumar and Roop Chand (since deceased) were going to village Nangal Jogiyan on a motor cycle No. DHO 4421 being driven by Ramesh Kumar. They were going on their extreme left side on GT road near village Gadpuri. In the meantime, jeep No. DL 2 CD 7347 being driven by Dharam Singh respondent No.2 came in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motor cycle. As a result of the impact they fell down and suffered injuries and after two days, Roop Chand died. They were removed to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, by Rattan Singh. Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents. However, respondent No. 2-A was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated

10.3.1995 as none had appeared on behalf of respondent No.2-A despite service. Respondent No. 2 was also proceeded ex parte on 10.9.1993. Respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. The factum of the accident has been denied. Respondent No.3 appeared and filed separate written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The factum of accident has also been denied. Other averments have also been denied. Both these claim petitions were consolidated together as common question of law and fact was involved therein, vide order dated FAO No. 1227 of 1997 3

10.3.1995. It was however, ordered that the proceedings recorded in claim petition No. 232 shall also be read as proceedings on other petition as well. Following consolidated issues were framed:- (1)Whether Roop Chand died in an accident and Ramesh Kumar petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 7.3.1993 due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. DL 2CD 7347 by respondent No.1 Gian Chand? (2) To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? (3) Relief. The parties had led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence, awarded compensation to the claimant-Bhagwan Dass for Rs.59,000/- to be shared equally. The claimant Ramesh Kumar in claim petition titled Ramesh Kumar vs. Gian Chand is awarded compensation of Rs.75,080/-. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition from the date of petition till payment.

The respondents were also held liable jointly and severally to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation and interest to the claimant. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents- United India Insurance Company Ltd., preferred this appeal for setting aside the award. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone thorough the records of the case. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that it is established on the record beyond doubt that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Insurance Company FAO No. 1227 of 1997 4 examined RW-1 Subhash Sood, who has categorically stated that he has inspected the record of Licenceing Authority, Solan regarding licence No.9621/86 A/C Sh.Gyan Chand son of Devi Ram date of issue 6.4.1986. As per report Ex.RW-1/1 the said licence was not issued in favour of Gian Chand. To further prove the said fact, Insurance Company examined Hari Singh Clerk, Registration and Licensing Authority, Solan, who has categorically stated that no licence was issued in the name of Gian Chand son of Devi Ram bearing No.9621/86 dated 6.4.1986.

On 6.4.1986, no licence was issued in favour of any one. However, on 5.4.1986 licence No.152 dated 5.4.1986 was issued in favour of Amrit Singh son of Sant Singh. So, the alleged licence possessed by respondent No.1 is forged and fabricated document and has not been issued by any Licensing Authority. So, in these circumstances, the learned Tribunal should have ordered that Insurance Company shall be liable to recover the amount from the owner. To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 698. I have carefully considered the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the authority of Davinder Singh's case (supra). It is proved on the file that respondent No.1 Gian Chand before the Tribunal was not holding a valid driving licence and the licence No.9621/86 is a forged and fabricated document and has not been issued by Licensing Authority, Solan.

There is nothing on the file to prove that owner of the vehicle satisfied himself that Gian Chand was holding a valid driving licence. FAO No. 1227 of 1997 5 So, there is a clear violation of the terms of policy and as such in view of authority Davinder Singh's case (supra), Insurance Company is held liable to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the finding of the trial Court that the Insurance Company shall not be entitled to claim compensation amount from the owner stands set aside by accepting the appeal and the Insurance Company is held entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner after the payment of the same to the claimants. Consequently, the appeals directed by the Insurance Company stand accepted to that extent. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. March 5th , 2010 ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE