The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Urmila Devi & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 26 Jul 2017 · 2017:DHC:3947
J. R. Midha
MAC.APP.723/2016
2017:DHC:3947
civil appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that an owner who conducts a driving test and believes the driver's licence to be genuine is not guilty of willful breach, dismissing the insurer's appeal for recovery rights against the owner despite the licence being fake.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC.APP.723/2016
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th July, 2017
MAC.APP.723/2016 & CM 12343/2017
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.S.P. Jain, Advocate
VERSUS
URMILA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate for respondent no.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 9th June, 2016 to the extent that the Claims Tribunal has declined to grant recovery rights to the appellant.

2. The accident dated 24th June, 2010 resulted in the death of Dalip Kumar Singh. The deceased was survived by his mother and brother who filed an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal which resulted in the award dated 9th June, 2016 whereby compensation of Rs.4,20,012/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to respondents no.1 and 2. The appellant has satisfied the award against respondent no.2 and is seeking recovery rights against respondents no.3 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that 2017:DHC:3947 MAC.APP.723/2016 the driving licence of respondent no.3 was fake and the appellant examined the witness from Road Transport Authority, Guwahati to prove that the licence was fake. It is submitted that respondents no.3 and 4 filed common written statement. However, respondent no.4 later amended the written statement to take an additional plea that he had taken the test of the driver before employing him and believed his licence to be genuine.

4. The Claims Tribunal held that respondent no.4 came in the witness box as R2W[1] and deposed that he had seen the driving licence of the driver and believed it to be genuine. R2W[1] further deposed that he took the driving test of the driver before employing him. The Claims Tribunal held that there was no willful breach on part of respondent no.4 and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to recovery rights.

5. It is well settled that the owner who takes the driving test and believes the driving licence shown to him at the time of the employment to be proved, cannot be held to be guilty of willful breach. Reference in this regard be made to National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC) and United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru, I (2003) ACC 611 (SC)

6. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.

7. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant.

8. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. JULY 26, 2017 Dk J.R. MIDHA, J.