$~15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Decided on: 12.12.2025

+ MAC.APP. 328/2013

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY .....Appellant

Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate.

versus

JAWAHAR PRASAD KESHRI

@ JAWAHAR SHAH & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”] assails an award dated 14.02.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in Suit No. 625/2011, by which the Tribunal has made an award of Rs. 4,11,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, in favour of the claimant [respondent No. 1 herein],

arising from injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

2. The accident occurred at about 9:00 PM on 13.06.2010, when the claimant was working as a conductor/helper in a bus [bearing registration No. BR-45-P-0541] [“insured vehicle”]. The claimant was standing behind the bus, while passengers were alighting, when the driver

suddenly started reversing, resulting in grievous injuries to him.

3. FIR No. 136/2010 was registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin against the driver of the insured vehicle [respondent No. 2] under Sections 279/338/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. A chargesheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, was also filed.

4. The claimant approached the Tribunal for compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver, owner, and insurer of the insured vehicle [appellant herein] were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

5. By the impugned award, the Tribunal rendered a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the insured vehicle, and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,11,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to the claimant. The Tribunal also granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the driver and owner of the insured vehicle [respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein respectively], on the ground that the vehicle was being driven without the requisite permit, which constitutes a breach of policy conditions.

6. Before this Court, notice was issued to all the respondents on 12.04.2013, and order dated 25.03.2014 records that service to all respondents was complete. In fact, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 entered appearance through counsel on the same date. The appeal was thereafter admitted by order dated 13.02.2017. It was taken up in the list of regular hearing matters on several occasions, and ultimately Court notice was directed to be served to the respondents by orders dated 02.12.2022, 28.04.2023 and again on 27.01.2025. The registry reports that service of Court notice on the said respondents is still awaited.

7. However, having regard to the long pendency of the matter, I have heard Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and do not consider it necessary to wait for service upon the respondents, as in my view, the issue raised in the appeal is covered against the appellant.

8. While issuing notice in this appeal on 12.04.2013, recording the principal contention of the Insurance Company was recorded, to the effect that it should have been completely exonerated from payment of compensation, as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated by the owner and driver of the insured vehicle. In such circumstances, it was urged that the “pay and recover” principle - under which the insurer is required to compensate the claimant, and claim recovery from the owner of the insured vehicle – was inapplicable.

9. A reference was made in the said order to an order of the Supreme Court dated 31.08.2009 in National Insurance Company Limited v. Parvathneni & Anr.¹, by which this very issue was referred to a larger Bench, by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. While doing so, the reference order dated 31.08.2009 recorded as follows:

“4. No doubt, there are some decisions which have taken the view that even if the insura