Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 806
High Court of Delhi
SURESH KAIT, J.
National Insurance Co Ltd.
Versus
Subhash Gupta & Others
MAC.APP. No. 649 of 2005 & CM No. 10642 of 2005
Decided on: 12-03-2014
For the Appellant:Prapeep Gaur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
The insurance policy should be in force at the time of the accident, and issues not raised at the trial stage cannot be raised at the appellate stage.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 147 - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149 - The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - [Insurance] - [Motor Accident Claim] - [Insurance Act, 1938, Section 147; The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149; The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989] - The court discussed the validity of the insurance policy and driving license at the time of the accident. It emphasized that the insurance policy should have been in force at the time of the accident and that the issue of the driver's invalid license was not raised at the trial stage and could not be raised at the appellate stage.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/Insurance Company appealed against the award of compensation for a motor accident, arguing that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident and the driver did not hold a valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance policy should have been in force at the time of the accident and that the issue of the driver's invalid license was not raised at the trial stage and could not be raised at the appellate stage.
Issues: Validity of insurance policy and driving license at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurance policy should have been in force at the time of the accident, and the issue of the driver's invalid license could not be raised at the appellate stage.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant/Insurance Company was directed to release the statutory amount in its favor and the balance compensation in favor of the injured.
Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. 649/2005
1. The instant appeal is preferred against the award dated 16.02.2005, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.1,41,320/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. The main ground taken in the instant appeal is that the accident had taken place on 30.01.2003 and on the said date, the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Despite, Ld. Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount in favour of the claimant even without granting recovery rights against respondent No.2, i.e., owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the preliminary objections of the Insurance Company was that on the date of accident, the policy in question was valid from 04.02.2003 to 03.02.2004, thus, the said vehicle was not insured with the Company.
4. Learned Counsel submits that even in written statement filed before the learned Tribunal, it was specifically mentioned that the offending vehicle bearing No. DDL-6760, a Matador, which involved in the alleged accident, was insured with the Policy bearing No. 360501/31/02/6725827 for the period from 04.02.2003 to 03.02.2004. However, the accident had taken place on 30.01.2003. Thus, on the date of accident, the said vehicle was not covered under the aforesaid policy.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the accident had taken place on 30.01.2003. On the said date, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license. The driving license on record was expired on 17.08.2002 and thereafter renewed on 17.02.2004. Thus, on the date of accident, the said license was not valid.
6. It is further submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company issued notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to produce the original insurance policy and the driving license. However, they failed to do so.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 2, i.e., owner of the offending vehicle neither replied to the notice Under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC nor appeared before the Ld. Tribunal, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte. In the present appeal, service was effected upon the said respondent No.2 through citation, despite, appeared none on his behalf.
8. The appellant/Insurance Company examined R2W1, Sh. Balwan Singh, Assistant Administrative Officer of the Company, who had produced the dispatch register containing the entries regarding dispatch of the Insurance Policies to the insured persons w.e.f. 08.11.2002 to 11.04.2003. From the said register, it was revealed that the Policy Ex.R2W1/B was dispatched to the insured on 21.02.2003 vide entry in the Register Ex.R2W1/C. He also proved that the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was sent to insured Sh. Umed Singh through Registered Cover, office copy of which is proved as Ex.R2W1/D. Postal receipt is Ex.R2W1/E and AD Card is Ex.R2W1/F. He further deposed that despite service of the said notice, the insured did not produce the original policy.
9. In the cross-examination, he deposed that whenever a vehicle is to be insured a Proposal Form is required to be filled by the tentative insured and in the present case also Proposal Form must have been filled by the insured. However, the Proposal Form was not produced before the learned Tribunal in the present case.
10. R2W1 also produced the carbon copy of the cover note Ex.R2W1/A. As per the same, the date of risk was mentioned as 04.01.2003 to 03.01.2004. The risk cover in the cover note was also mentioned w.e.f. 04.01.2003 to 03.01.2004 and the date of issuance of the cover note was 03.01.2003.
11. R2W2, Manmeet Singh, Agent of the Insurance Company, deposed before the learned Tribunal that he had issued the Cover Note in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of Umed Singh which bears the date of issuance as 03.01.2003, whereas
