Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Bhateria And Ors. on 8 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR302
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 3251 of 1996 and 3243 of 1996. Both the aforesaid two appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company and have arisen out of a common award dated October 1, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. An accident had occurred on May 20, 1993. Hawa Singh and Smt. Bhateri alongwith several other passengers were travelling in a mini bus. It was claimed that Dharamvir was driving the aforesaid bus carelessly and negligently. On account of the aforesaid rashness and carelessness, an accident occurred. Hawa Singh and Bhateri alongwith other passengers sustained injuries. Both the aforesaid claimants claimed compensation on account of the said injuries by filing the claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, 'the Tribunal').
3. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence available on the record, found it is a fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving. The learned Tribunal further found that although the licence which was issued to the driver of the vehicle was originally fake but it had been renewed repeatedly and, therefore, had acquired validity. Consequently, the Insurance Company was also held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation was assessed. The claimant Hawa Singh was held entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/- and the claimant Bhateri was held entitled to Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. Both were held entitled to the compensation, as aforesaid, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. The National Insurance Company has filed the present two appeals.
5. Shri R.M.Suri, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that since the licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle was fake, therefore, subsequent renewals would not make the same valid. It has further been argued that Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay compensation on account of breach of policy by the insured.
6. However, I find myself unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004-1)136 P.L.R. 510 (S.C.) has held that the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liabilities to make the payment of compensation to the claimants merely on account of absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time.
8. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, Shri R.M.Suri, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has referred to a judgment in (National Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Ms. Kanti Devi and Ors.) On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, it has been argued by the learned Counsel that the matter be reanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision, since the law laid down by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) was not before the Tribunal.
9. I have duly considered the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same.
10. In Swaran Singh's case (supra), it has been laid down by the Apex Court that when the matter is pending before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the inter-se rights of the insured as well as the insurer. However, it has also been laid down in the aforesaid case that the Insurance Company can take recourse to its remedies before the Regular Court in cases where, on given facts and circumstances, adjudication of their claims inter-se might delay adjudication of the claims of the victims.
11. From the perusal of the record of the present case, it is apparent that the accident in question had taken place on May 20. 1993. A period of about 13 years has already elapsed. Remanding of the case at this stage would further obstruct and jeopardize the claim of the claimants. In these circumstances, there is no justification to remand the cases back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
12. However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra), Insurance Company would be at liberty to enforce its rights, if any, against the insured in proceedings before the Civil Court in accordance with law.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. The same are dismissed.