The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate disclosure of facts by the insurance company and the significance of valid permits and transfer of insurance policies in motor vehicle accident cases.

R.K. GAUBA, J.

1. These appeals are by the registered owner of the motor vehicle, the negligent driving of which is stated to have given rise to the cause of action for two claim petitions being instituted, the challenge here being to the recovery rights having been granted in favour of the insurance company by judgment dated 27.04.2010.

2. On 30.05.2004, at about 7.00 a.m. a motor vehicular accident occurred involving collision between two vehicles, one, a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-7S-AA- 4128 (motorcycle) and, the other, a truck bearing registration no. HR-38E-8404 (the truck) in the area of Noida Flyover within the jurisdiction of police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi. The motorcycle was driven by Harish Kumar Rastogi, his wife Kanti Devi travelling with him on the pillion. As a result of the collision, both fell down and sustained injuries.

3. Two accident claim cases (suit nos. 240/2004 and 243/2004) were instituted, one by Kanti Devi and the other by Harish Kumar Rastogi. In each case, Shammi Mohd. was described as the driver of the truck, he being the second respondent in these appeals. The appellant was impleaded by the claimants as second respondent in the claim petitions, his description being of the registered owner of the truck with further averments that the truck was insured against third party risk for the relevant period with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer), it now being the first respondent in these appeals.

4. The claim cases were contested by the above said driver and owner (the second respondent and the appellant respectively), by a joint written statement, denying the involvement, or negligence but affirming the case of the claimants that the truck was covered by an insurance policy against third party risk taken out from the said insurer. The insurer filed identical written statements confirming (in reply to para 17 of the claim petitions) that the truck was insured against third party risk under policy bearing no. 233605/2004/1723 for the period 07.08.2003 to 06.08.2004, the only plea in defence being to the effect that the benefit thereof could not be taken unless it was proved that the driver was holding a valid or effective driving licence.

5. Both the claim petitions were put to inquiry by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). It appears that during the pendency, the appellant and the driver would not appear regularly, their presence being recorded on some of the dates. The insurer, however, led evidence by examining Ratan Lal (R3W1) on 15.04.2010 and, through him, a copy of the insurance policy (Ex. R3W1/1) was proved, it having been issued in the name of M/s. Libra Finance and Carriers Pvt. Ltd. The insurer raised a defence at that stage that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy since the vehicle was not covered by a valid permit and, in order to prove this contention, reliance was placed on notice dated 27.01.2010 (Ex. R3W1/2) addressed by it to the said M/s. Libra Finance and Carriers Pvt. Ltd. calling it upon to make available copy of the permit in respect of the place of accident. The copy of the notice proved by the same very witness is shown by evidence to have been put in postal transit vide postal receipt (Ex.R3W1/3). The witness of the insurer (R3W1), proved on record that there was no response to the notice by M/s. Libra Finance and Carriers Pvt. Ltd.

6. The Tribunal, while accepting the claim for compensation of the first respondent in these appeals, by judgment dated 27.04.2010, also accepted the contention of the insurer about breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy holding that the vehicle was without a valid permit and, therefore, it was granted recovery rights against the appellant.

7. The appellant became alive to the grant of recovery rights adverse to his interests when the insurance company took out execution applications. During such proceedings, applications came to be moved by him under Ord