Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus
Umesh Singh & Others
MAC APP. 1100 of 2012
Decided On: 03-12-2012
Insurance - Motor Vehicle Accident - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 67 - Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008, Rule 7 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company in proving the breach of policy conditions by the insured, the mode of proof of documents under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of reports under Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008.
Fact of the Case:
The National Insurance Company Limited sought exoneration or recovery rights in a motor vehicle accident compensation case. The company relied on a report to prove that the owner did not possess a permit on the date of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the report was not enough to prove the absence of a valid permit and that it was not proved in accordance with the law. The court also discussed the mode of proof of documents under the Indian Evidence Act and the admissibility of reports under the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurance company, the mode of proof of documents, and the admissibility of reports in motor accident compensation cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company must prove the breach of policy conditions by the insured and discussed the mode of proof of documents under the Indian Evidence Act. The court also emphasized the admissibility of reports under the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
G. P. MITTAL, J
1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited seeks exoneration or in the alternative recovery rights in respect of compensation of Rs.60,000/-awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31.12.2005.
2. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of liability in Paras 56 to 59 of the impugned judgment, which are extracted hereunder:-
“56. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar in MAC Appeal No. 648/12 dated 01.06.2012 has rejected the appeal of insurance company in a case where no witness was examined by insurance company from the Licensing Authority to prove that the license was fake. Report of Licensing Authority stating that the license is fake and given to investigator of insurance company is not admissible for granting recovery rights or exoneration to insurance company.
57. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhikari Yadav, MAC Appeal No. 727/11 dated 03.01.2012 where Hon'ble High Court has stated in para 6 as under:-
“It is settled that in order to avoid the liability the onus on the Insurance Company to prove that there is breach of the policy conditions by the insured. The breach committed by the insured will be willful e.g. where the insured entrusted a vehicle to a duly licensed driver and it is unlawfully driven by any other person not holding a valid and effective driving license, it cannot be said that the owner is guilty of willful breach. Similarly, where a vehicle is stolen by a thief holding no license and meets with an accident, it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of a willful breach. Rather, the insured himself is a victim.”
58. In para no. 18, it is further held as under:
“In any case, the contents of the certificate can be presumed to be genuine it has to be proved that it is signed by the District Transport Officer, Gawahati. That having not been done, the certificate was not of any value and the same was not rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Since the insurance company failed to discharge the onus that the driving license held by the first Respondent was fake, it cannot avoid its liability.”
59. In this case, no witness was examined to prove the report of Licensing Authority stating that the license was fake.”
3. The Appellant Insurance Company relies on a report Ex.R3W1/6 purported to have been issued by the Transport Department, R.P. Road Headquarter where it was report as under:-
“No permit found as per the computer record.”
4. This report was not enough to prove that the owner did not possess a permit on the date of the accident. What was reported by the concerned official is that as per computer record no permit has been found. There was no positive report that vehicle did not possess a valid permit on the date of the accident. Moreover, even the report Ex.R3W1/6 has not been proved in accordance with law.
5. Every document including a public document has to be proved in accordance with law.
6. Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act) lays down the mode of proof of a document, which is extracted hereunder:-
“67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced
If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his hand writing.”
7. Thus, any document including public document has to be proved as provide under Section 67 of the Evidence Act.
8. The question of proof of a Sanction Order signed by the Sanctioning Authority i.e. Secretary (Medical) Delhi Administration came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court in State (Delhi Administr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
