'7^ 4 V * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. NO. 111/2008 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD APELLANT Through : Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus AFSANA BEGUM AND OTHERS ... .RESPONDENTS Through ; Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent no.9. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 27.10.2010 : REVA KHETRAPAL, J. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 6"' November, 2007 whereunderthe learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,16,709/- with 7% per annum interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation MACAPP. NO. 111/2008 Paselof6 Signing Date:12.08.2024 17:00:54 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified \ in favour of the claimants and fastened the liabilitythereofon the appellant- InsuranceCompany. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16"' April, 2004 one Dilshad Hussain (deceased)alongwith his friend Rasih Mohammed was going on his two wheelerscooterat a very slow speedto Khoda Colony via NationalHighwayNo. 24. When they were proceeding towards GazipurNala, suddenlya water tanker (hereinafterreferred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by one Manoj Kumar Bharti, rashly and negligently came from behind and hit the two wheelerscooterof the deceasedwith greatforce, as a resultof which deceasedsustainedgrievousinjuriesand was removedto Lai Bahadur Shastri Hospital where he died. 3. The claimants/RespondentsNo. 1 to 7 being the widow, childrenand parents of the deceasedfiled a claim petitionclaiming compensation of Rs. 20 laldis, alleging that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligentdrivingof the RespondentNo. 8, the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further stated in the claim petition that Respondent No. 9 herein, being the owner of the MACAPR NO. 111/2008 Pase2of6 offendingvehiclewas vicariouslyliabletopay compensationand that the appellantbeingthe InsuranceCompanyhad contractualliabilityto pay the same. 4. After consideringthe evidence on record, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as already stated, awarded a sum of ? 5,16,709/- with interest thereon in favour of the claimants/RespondentsNo. 1 to 7 herein. The appellant/Insurance Company before the Tribunal had taken a specific plea that the Respondent No. 2 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy as the offending vehicle was being driven by a person withouta valid driving licence. However,the aforesaidplea of the appellant was rejected by the learned Tribunal with the observationthatthe RespondentNo. 8had a validdrivinglicenceand the appellant/Insurancecompany could not prove that Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had violated any of the terms and conditions of Insurancepolicy. Thus,the Insurancecompanywas heldliabletopay the compensationto the RespondentNos. 1to 7. MAC APR NO. 111/2008 Page 3 of6 5. Aggrieved against the award of the learned Tribunal, the appellantpreferredthe present appeal. While issuing notice at the time ofadmissionofthe presentappeal,this CourtonMarch05, 2005 recorded as under:- "MAC APPNo. 111/2008 Counsel appearingfor the appellant contends that in para 18 of the impugnedaward, the Tribunal itself has observedthat respondentNo. 2 driver of the offending vehiclewas in possessionof the fake drivinglicence,but basedon the renewalofthe said licence,responsibilityof the appellantinsurancecompany has been fixed to pay the claimamountwithouteven givingany recoveryrights againstthe ownerand driverofthe offendingvehicle. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the claimants, and therefore,there is no necessityto servethem. Subject to compliance of the award, issue show cause notice to respondent Nos. 8 and 9, returnable on 14.5.2008." 6. The service was effected on respondent Nos. 8 and 9. RespondentNo. 9, the owneroftheoffendingvehicle,choseto appear beforethis Courtthroughhis counsel. However,therespondentNo. 8 has chosennot to appearandcontestthis appeal. MACAPR NO. 111/2008 Pase4of6 7. The learnedcounselfor the appellanthas drawnmy attentionto the reportsubmittedby the Investigatorqua the drivinglicenceissued in favour of the respondentNo. 8, which shows that no such licence was ever issued by the the District Transport Officer, Lohardaga (Jharkhand)to the respondentno.8. 8. I have heard counsel for the appellantand have perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has overlookedthe testimonyof RW3W1- Shri Bhagwat Singh and the report of the Investigatorwhich clearly establish that the driving licence sought to be relied upon before the Tribunal was a fake licence as the same was never issued from the District Transport Office,Lohardaga,Jharkhand. The learnedTribunalalso completely lost sight of the fact that it is settled law.that renewal of a fake licence cannot divest it of its fake identity. \New India Assurance Corporation,Shimla vs. Kamla and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 342 S.C.; NationalInsurance CompanyLtd. vs. LaxmiNarain Dhut (2007)3 SCC 700 diuA.OrientalInsuranceCompanyLtd. V5. Meena Variyal & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 428]. MACAPP. NO. 111/2008 Pase5of6 '4 a."- 9. The appealfiledby the appellantis thus allowed.The appellant is given recovery rights to recover the entire award amount as deposited by it from respondent Nos. 8 and 9. 10. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of October2010 sk REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) MAC APR NO. 111/2008 Pase6of6