Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 23 September, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
FAO No.4492 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4492 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision: 23.09.2013
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Vinod Kumar & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
CM No.18687-CII of 2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 53 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
FAO No.4492 of 2013(O&M) Vinod Kumar-respondent filed a claim application on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 2.8.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.3. The said vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant.
While determining the compensation, the Tribunal observed as under:
"As regard, the liability to pay the above compensation, admittedly, respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending Dumper bearing No.HR-55J-4586, as per copy of Registration Certificate Ex.P6, Ex.P7 is the Saini Pushpinder 2013.09.30 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4492 of 2013(O&M) 2 copy of driving licence of respondent No.1 which no doubt, reflects that the respondent No.1 possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant juncture. However, report of Licensing Authority has been proved by the respondent No.3 as Ex.R2 which indicates, that driving license at Sr.No.111/2005 is lying registered in the name of Aadhu Misra son of Farik Chand Misra, Mukanda Pardha Baliapur Dhandbad, meaning thereby, licence Ex.P7 has been got verified as fake. Ex.R2 is admissible in view of law laid down in "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Mulayam Bai and others", 1999 ACJ 727- Whether certificate issued by licensing authority to the effect that no driving license exists in the record of the licensing authority is a public document and admissible in evidence without examining someone from the authority-Held : yes, certificate is a record of the act done by a public officer who has found after examining his own record, that the licence does not exist. Copy of Insurance Cover Note shows that the offending dumper was insured with the respondent No.3 at the relevant time. But it is held that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, meaning thereby, there is violation in terms and conditions of insurance policy and the respondent No.3 being insurer cannot be held liable, to indemnify the liability of respondent No.2, and therefore, the Saini Pushpinder 2013.09.30 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4492 of 2013(O&M) 3 respondent No.3 is hereby absolved from its liability, but to meet interest of justice respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Firstly respondent No.3 shall pay compensation and then shall recover from respondents No.1 and 2 in accordance with law. Hence these issues are stands decided, accordingly."
Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company has been duly absolved from its liability holding that respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and there was no violation in terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. However, it has been held that in the first instance, the appellant shall pay the compensation and then recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 in accordance with law.
The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is under challenge at the instance of the appellant-Insurance Company submitting that once the findings have been recorded absolving the Insurance company from its liability, there was no question of directing the appellant to make the compensation to the respondent-claimant in the first instance and then to recover it from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.
However, counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kusum & ors. II(2010) ACC 518(SC), on similar facts and circumstances, ordered the Insurance Company to make the payment of the compensation amount to the claimants in the first instance and then to recover it from the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.
In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal. Saini Pushpinder 2013.09.30 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.4492 of 2013(O&M) 4 No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed.
CM No.18688-CII of 2013 Since this appeal has been decided on merits, the application for condonation of delay of 179 days in filing this appeal has become redundant.
September 23, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder
2013.09.30 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh