IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Insurance Company to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and the entitlement to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This common judgment shall decide the above noted appeals preferred by the appellant/registered owner of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Act) assailing the impugned common judgment-cum-award dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) (South-West District), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi arising out of MACP No.1356/2016, titled Rajiv Kumar v. Nirmal Singh & Ors. as also MACP No.1355/2016, titled Haripal & Anr. v. Nirmal Singh & Ors., whereby respondent No.3/Insurance Company has been made entitled to recover the amount awarded to the claimants from the appellant.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. In MAC.APP. 204/2019, shorn off unnecessary details, claimant/Rajiv Kumar met with a motor accident on 04.04.2014 when he was driving truck bearing No. DL-1M-4988 from Manesar towards Delhi involving another truck bearing No. HR-55J-2806, and sustained injuries. The claimant/injured filed a claim for compensation on 28.05.2014 against Nirmal Singh, the driver of the other vehicle, which was registered in the name of respondent No.2/present appellant herein and insured by respondent No.3/Insurance Company. The claim petition was allowed vide judgment dated 03.10.2018, whereby issue No.1 that the claimant sustained injuries towards rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR-38S-9138 by respondent No.1 was decided in his favour. As regards respondent No.2, a total compensation of Rs. 13,69,000/- was awarded to the claimant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 28.05.2014, till realisation. Although, the liability of payment of the compensation was fastened on the shoulders of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was also given the right to recover the amount of compensation from the registered owner i.e, respondent No.2/the present appellant.

3. In so far as MAC.APP. 215/2019 is concerned, the claimants are parents of deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the same motor accident that occurred on 04.04.2014, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,74,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 28.05.2014, till realisation.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimants instituted MAC. APP. 10/2019 and MAC. APP. 15/2019 seeking enhancement of compensation, which has since been dismissed by this Court vide a common judgment dated 24.05.2023. Hence, the main contest is between the appellant/registered owner and the respondent/Insurance Company.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned judgment-cum-award requires interference inasmuch as it was never the case of the Insurance Company that respondent No.1 was not possessing a valid driving licence and that no issue was framed with regard to such aspect, which left the appellant highly prejudiced. Pointing out that the appellant, in its written statement had clearly brought out that the respondent driver was possessing a valid driving licence and that no evidence worth its salt was led by the Insurance Company to show that the driving licence was fake or fabricated in any manner. Heavy reliance has been placed in Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2119

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, referring to the observation made by the learned Tribunal in paragraph (4) of the impugned common judgment-cum-award, submitted that it was their specific defence that no information about the accident had been given to the Insurance Company in compliance with Section 134(C) of the Act and that it was brought out by them during the course of evidence that no driving licence had been issued to the respondent No.1 by the Nagaland Transport Authority.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of