The neglect in defense prosecution by the registered owner led to prolonged proceedings, and the liability of the insurer under the policy of insurance continues even if the vehicle is leased to a third person.

1. The first of these appeals arising out of two separate judgments of motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) relating to same motor vehicular accident bring out facts which reflect how neglect in proper, effective or timely prosecution of the defence by the registered owner of the vehicle has led to prolonged proceedings in the court which could have been avoided.

2. On 30.07.2005, a motor vehicular accident took place involving two trucks, one being truck bearing no. HR 63 3778 in which the victims were travelling and the other being truck bearing no. HR 38E 8389 (described as the offending vehicle). Rishi Parkash was the driver of the first mentioned vehicle and with him Ashok Kumar and another person were moving as passengers on errand for sale of vegetables. The collision took place at about 10.30 a.m. when the said vehicle had reached near CNG pump on main Kanjhawala Road, Near Mangolpuri, Sector-23, Rohini. The offending vehicle carrying bricks as the cargo is stated to have come in rash or negligent manner, it being driven by Om Prakash (one of the respondents herein), it being the vehicle registered in the name of M/s Nutech Security Printers (appellant in MAC appeal No. 200/2009 and one of the respondents in MAC appeal No. 556/2015).

3. For the sake of convenience, M/s Nutech Security Printers shall hereinafter be referred to as the registered owner.

4. It is admitted that the above said offending vehicle was insured against third party risk for the period in question with National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MAC Appeal No. 556/2015 and one of the respondents in MAC Appeal No. 200/2009).

5. For the sake of convenience, the National Insurance Company Ltd. shall hereinafter be referred to as the insurer.

6. Rishi Parkash, the driver of the first mentioned vehicle died as a consequence of the injuries suffered. His widow and other members of the dependent family, they being first to fourth respondents in MAC appeal No. 200/2009 (collectively, the claimants in that case) instituted the accident claim case (petition no. 221/2006). The said petition, after inquiry, resulted in judgment dated 18.09.2007 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,51,770.40 with interest was awarded, the liability being fastened against Om Prakash (the driver) and the registered owner.

7. The insurer had taken the plea that the offending vehicle was not covered by a valid permit for Delhi and that its driver did not hold a valid driving license. The driver or owner failed to put in any contest at that stage and chose to suffer the proceedings ex-parte. On the basis of evidence led, and the submissions, its plea was accepted and the insurer stood exonerated. It is primarily this result which gave rise to the registered owner coming with MAC Appeal no. 200/2009 raising various contentions.

8. Pertinent to note here that the pleadings in appeal, as originally presented in the context of the question of valid license and valid permit were very vague.

9. Meanwhile, Ashok Kumar, the other victim of the same accident, he having been injured, filed his own independent case (suit no. 206/2013). In the said case, it appears the registered owner took up the plea that the offending vehicle had been given on lease to Chand Singh, son of late Sh. Jai Lal for a period of 24 months in terms of lease agreement dated 02.09.2003 and that the driver Om Prakash had been engaged by the said Chand Singh, the vehicle being in his custody and control. The registered owner, thus, denied the liability to pay compensation.

10. Against the said backdrop, Chand Singh, was impleaded as fourth respondent in the claim case of Ashok Kumar. In the course of inquiry into the said case, the registered owner was constrained to approach this Court by CM (M) 400/2010, which was decided by a learned single judge by judgment dated 25.03.2010. The tribunal was directed to examine the issue raised by the registered owner as to who was the real owner of the vehicle on the dat