Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Gulabi Devi & Ors.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 30.07.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.6,95,336/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, i.e., 13.01.2010 till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC is issued by the respondents (before Tribunal) in favour of the petitioner (before Tribunal).

2. Instant appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the permit of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. Thus, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In such eventuality, Ld. Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from any 2014:DHC:2036 liability or alternatively granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant and against respondent nos. 5 and 6.

3. On perusal of the trial court record it is revealed that the permit pertaining to the offending vehicle is on record as Ex.R3W1/2. The onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit. The said fact could have been proved by the Insurance Company by summoning the record relating to the permit of the offending vehicle in question from the concerned Transport Authority. The appellant could have also proved the said fact by appointing an Investigator, who could have visited the concerned Transport Authority and obtained a report that the owner had no permit to ply the vehicle in Delhi. Moreover, no notice for production of the valid permit was issued by the Insurance Company to the owner of the offending vehicle. The record was also not summoned from the concerned Transport Authority to prove the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have any permit for plying the same in Delhi. Moreover, no efforts have been made by the appellant / Insurance Company to prove the validity of the permit during the pendency of this appeal.

4. In addition, despite repeated opportunities, respondent no.5, driver of the offending vehicle has not been served. Due to which vide order dated 14.01.2013, cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the appellant / Insurance Company. Thereafter vide order dated 06.11.2013, cost of Rs.15,000/further imposed upon the appellant / Insurance Company. Again vide order dated 07.02.2014 another cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed upon the appellant / insurance Company. Since the cost was not deposited by the appellant / Insurance Company, therefore, vide order dated 31.03.2014, further cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon them.

5. In view of the facts notice above, I find no merit in the instant appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed.

6. I direct the appellant / Insurance Company to deposit the cost amount as noted above in favour of the respondents / claimants in equal proportion. The statutory amount shall be adjusted in the cost amount and the balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondents / claimants on taking steps by them.

SURESH KAIT, J APRIL 17, 2014 jg