Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bijender Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others on 18 January, 2011
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No. 4999 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 4999 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision August 26, 2010
Bijender Singh
....... Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
*****
Present:- Mr. J. S. Saneta, Advocate
for the appellant.
******
K. Kannan, J (oral)
CM No.21601-CII of 2010
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 600 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO No. 4999 of 2010
1. The owner is in appeal against the award casting liability on the insurer to provide a right of recovery against the owner. The defence was inter alia that although the driver did not have a valid driving license, he had not been disqualified to hold the license. The license, no doubt has expired prior to the accident but it had been renewed subsequently.
2. This aspect of a delayed renewal after the date of accident has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the law has been settled that if Section 15 provides for a period of 30 days for renewal of license and if the renewal is not done within the grace period then the subsequent renewal will not afford to the owner to plead that the FAO No. 4999 of 2010 2 driver had not been disqualified to hold the license. In The National Insurance Company Vs. Jarnail Singh 2007 15 SCC 28, the case was identical that renewal of license had been made subsequent to the accident and beyond the period of 30 days and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. The liability will cast no more than to satisfy the claim and will have a right of recovery against the insured. The point of law has been reaffirmed in subsequent decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal 2009 15 SCC 761. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the contention of the owner is not sustainable.
3. There is also another plea that he had transferred the vehicle to yet another person but subsequent purchaser had defrauded and secured his signatures to apply to the criminal court for release of the vehicle seized by the police for its involvement in the accident by superdari. If the Tribunal has held that there is no proof of such transfer and held the appellant to be the owner of the vehicle, with no other material available before this Court, it may not be possible to reverse such a finding. I do not find that there is any worthwhile case to prosecute and the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself dispensing with notice to the respondents.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 26, 2010 archana