Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1087
High Court of Delhi
G.P. MITTAL, J.
Tara Sharma & Others
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others
MAC. APP. Nos. 185 of 2009, 236 of 2009 & 238 of 2009
Decided on : 30-08-2013
For the Appearing Parties:Navneet Goyal with Ms. Mamta Bhardwaj, D.D. Singh with Navdeep Singh, Ms. Arati Mahajan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 6 - Accident claim - Insurance company - Compensation - Insurance Company failed to prove any wilful or conscious breach of the terms and conditions of the policy - Section 6 of the Act puts restrictions on a person holding a second driving licence while he holds any driving licence which is in force - A fake driving licence cannot be said to be a driving licence for the time being in force - Even if owner was aware of the driving licence issued by the Licensing Officer, Pune and the same was found to be fake then the said driving licence shall be deemed to be not in force - Held, the Claims Tribunal's order making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation cannot be faulted - Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 165, 166 - Accident claim - Computation of compensation - Future prospects - Appellants are parents and siblings of the deceased - Enhancement of compensation - Deceased income was proved as Rs. 8450/-per month - Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in all towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss to estate - Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money - Held, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages - Compensation enhanced under this head to Rs. 25,000/- - In addition, the claimants are awarded Rs. 10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate - Compensation stands enhanced by Rs. 3,28,550/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by the claim tribunal.
G.P. Mittal, J.
CM. 7068/2009 (delay) in MAC APP.238/2009
There is a delay of 93 days in filing the Appeal.
For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay of 93 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
The Application is allowed.
MAC.APP. 185/2009, MAC.APP. 236/2009 & MAC.APP. 238/2009
1. These three Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in Suit No.313/2008 titled Ajay Popli v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. and Suit No.319/2008 titled Smt. Tara Sharma & Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors.
2. MAC APP. 185/2009 is for enhancement of compensation preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased Naveen Chandra Sharma whereas MAC APPs.236/2009 and 328/2009 have been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited (the Insurance Company) on the ground that although the driving licence No.7620 held by the respondent Bachan Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be fake, the Claims Tribunal still made the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.
3. On 18.08.1999 at about 12:40 P.M. the deceased Naveen Chandra Sharma and Ajay Popli were driving on a two wheeler No.DL-7SC-4131. The two wheeler was being driven by Naveen Chandra Sharma (the deceased) while respondent (the claimant) Ajay Popli was sitting on the pillion. When the two wheeler reached near Todapur Picket, a bus No.DL-1P-6097 being driven by Bachan Singh in a rash and negligent manner came on the wrong side and collided against the two wheeler. Ajay Popli and Naveen Chandra Sharma suffered injuries. The injuries suffered by Naveen Chandra Sharma proved to be fatal. Two separate claim petitions were filed, that is, one by injured Ajay Popli (Suit No.313/2008) and the other (Suit No.319/2008) by the legal representatives of the deceased Naveen Chandra Sharma.
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.22,81,825/- towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in favour of Ajay Popli and a sum of Rs.5,53,000/- for the loss of dependency and the non-pecuniary damages in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Naveen Chandra Sharma.
MAC.APP. 236/2009 & MAC.APP. 238/2009
5. The only ground of challenge raised in these appeals is that the driving licence No.7260 held by the driver Bachan Singh and purported to have been issued by Licensing Officer, Pune was proved to be fake by the Insurance Company. Although another driving licence Mark A produced by Rakesh Ahuja, who was the owner of the Bus No. DL-1P-6097 was not got verified by the Insurance Company, yet in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1932 (the Act) a driver cannot possess two driving licences and thus, the driving licence produced by Rakesh Ahuja, the owner of the bus (the insured) was of no consequence. Referring to Jai Parkash Goyal v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC) the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prayed that the impugned order so far as it makes the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside and the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants argues that the onus is on the Insurance Company to prove that there is a willful and intentional breach of the terms of policy on the part of the insured. Rakesh Ahuja’s (insured’s) testimony as R1W1 that driver Bachan Singh had produced a driving licence issued by the Transport Authority, Mathura to him and that he had employed Bachan Singh after taking a driving test and finding him to be a skilled driver, was not challenged in cross-examination. The Insurance Company never tried to verify the genuineness of the driving licence Mark A although its copy was produced when the insured received a notice to produce the driving licence. The learned counsel for the claimants, therefore, argues that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to take a plea of breach
