New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kundan Singh & Ors.

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): REVA KHETRAPAL, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the award dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. 2011:DHC:410

2. The sole grievance of the appellant is with regard to the findings rendered by the Tribunal on Issue No.1, which read as follows: “Issue no.1 The law is well settled that it is for the Insurance company to firstly establish that there was a condition in the Insurance policy regarding the plying of vehicle by a duly licensed driver, and secondly to prove that this condition was violated. In this case, I do not find any evidence of the driving licence of the driver being seized by police nor it has been placed on record in original in the court, by the Insurance company. It has also not produced the original insurance policy to prove the condition which was violated. The company has examined RW[1] a clerk from the Department of Transport, to say that driving licence no.81/1680, was not in the name of driver but in the name of one Subash Chander. In the absence of any evidence, as to seizure of this very licence by the police, or its production by respondent no.1, as his licence, the evidence of RW[1], has no feet to stand and it proves nothing. In the light of these facts and state of evidence, I hold that respondent has failed to prove its plea of driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent no.1 without licence. This issue is, therefore, decided against the respondent Insurance company and in favour of petitioner.”

3. At the time of hearing, a specific query was put to Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate from where driving licence No.81/1680 had been procured by the Insurance Company, since it was apparent from the record that no driving licence had been seized by the police at the time of the accident. Mr. Seth has not been able to give any cogent answer to the query and is unable to say as to how the number of this driving licence was procured by the Insurance Company and as to why the clerk from the Department of Transport was called upon to produce this particular licence. This being the situation, it is apparent that there was no justification for the Insurance Company to presume that driving licence No.81/1680 was that of the driver of the offending vehicle in this case, namely, Satyavir Singh.

4. For the aforesaid reason, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) January 24, 2011 km