$~29 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 48/2021&CM APPL. 2727/2021 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate (through VC)

versus SMT. HIRA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar and Mr.

Hanzla Kazim, Advocates for R-

4 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026

1. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for Insurance Company, argues in favour of grant of recovery rights against the owner/respondent no.4.

2. The issue revolves around the alleged fake license of the driver of the vehicle/respondent no.3. The MACT has dealt with this issue in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgement.

3. Essentially, pursuant to a notice sent to the DTO, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, R3W1, Ms. Neelam Rani gave her deposition and stated that the insurance company got the DL no. 1886G106 was verified by the investigator, Shri Rakesh Kumar, appointed by the Insurance Company, which was annexed as Exhibit R3W1/2.

4. As per this verification report, the Driving License (‘DL’) bearing no.1886G/06 was not issued by the office of DTO, Muzaffarpur.

5. However, counsel for respondent no.4 contends that neither the investigator nor any official from the DTO, Muzaffarpur, was examined as a witness. On the contrary, DAR shows that the IO had verified the DL from DTO, Sheohar.

6. The Insurance company having failed to explain why its investigator could not be examined, counsel for respondent no.4 states that it was the duty of Insurance Company to bring evidence on record, specifically when R3W1's testimony was incomplete and not determinative.

7. Reliance was placed by Mr. Pradeep Gaur on the decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342, which states as under.

“25. The position can be summed up thus: The insurer and the insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy, and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimant third parties) from the insured person.”

(emphasis added)

8. However, counsel for respondent no.4 cites decision of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003) 3 SCC 338. wherein the decision in Kamla (supra) is stated to be incorrectly decided. The Supreme Court in Lehru (supra) has adumbrated on the issue of duty to verify the license of the driver, and to the extent of diligence it is expected to undertake. It effectively opines that the owner cannot be expected to make inquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, to find out whether the driving licenses are valid or not, and if it turns out that the license was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted as under:

“16. In spite of the above enunciation of law the insurance companies still continue to disclaim liability on the ground that the licence was fake. In the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342 the question was whether by virtue of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) an insurance comp