MAC APP 278/2008 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25th November, 2011 Pronounced on:19th December, 2011 + MAC.APP. 287/2008 ZAMINDAR MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. P.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Advocate. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Gunjan Proxy Counsel for Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Zamindar Motor Transport Company Private Limited impugns the award dated 22.01.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby a compensation of ` 6,24,000/- was awarded in favour of the Respondents No.3 to 9. While granting the compensation, the Tribunal observed that since the driving licence held by Narender Kumar (Respondent No.2 herein) was fake, there was breach of the policy conditions and thus the Respondent No.1 New India Assurance Company Limited shall be entitled to MAC APP 278/2008 Page 2 of 3 recover the awarded compensation from the owner of the offending bus (Appellant herein). 2. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was preferred by the Appellant on the ground that he had not been properly served. The same came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 26.04.2006. The objections to the execution petition were also dismissed by an order dated 31.08.2007. 3. The ground taken up in the instant Appeal is that Respondent No.2 (Narender Kumar) the driver of the bus had produced a licence dated 30.04.1995 which was valid on the date of the accident than the driving licence purported to be seized by the police in the criminal case. The Appellant was satisfied about the genuineness of the licence and, therefore, it did not commit any breach of the condition of the policy under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). 4. Respondent No.1 New India Assurance Company Limited by an order of this Court dated 21.04.2009 was directed to verify the genuineness of the licence produced along with the Appeal. A report dated 06.05.2009 by Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Investigator appointed by Respondent No.1, has been placed on record which shows that the driving licence was issued on 30.04.1995 and the same was valid to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV). MAC APP 278/2008 Page 3 of 3 5. As per Section 14 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act, a driving licence issued to drive a transport vehicle is effective for a period of three years. Though the investigator’s report does not show that the licence was not valid on the date of the accident i.e. 24.02.1997. Otherwise also according to Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act, the licence issued on 30.04.1995 would be valid till 29.04.1998. 6. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Appellant committed breach of the terms of the policy under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act entitling Respondent No.1 to avoid the liability. The Appeal, therefore, has to be allowed. 7. Respondent No.1 Insurance Company shall not have any right to recover the amount of compensation from the Appellant in respect of the compensation paid by it to the Claimants. 8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 19, 2011 vk