NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. R.P. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in suit No. 308/2004 thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.3, 50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization of the decretal amount.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the respondent is the registered owner of the truck bearing no. HR 38 7885 attached to M/s Chetak International Cargo Ltd. for the purpose of carriage of goods of customers to various destinations throughout the country and that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company for a sum of Rs. 3, 50,000. The aforesaid vehicle while enroute from Faridabad to Madras carrying auto parts self ignited near Nawasphate, Madhya Pradesh resulting in total loss of the truck. Thereafter the respondent submitted his claim with the appellant which was rejected on the ground that the claim was not admissible under the terms and conditions of the policy as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident did not hold a valid licence and hence repudiated the claim of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for recovery bearing suit no. 308/04 and vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2006 the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000 with an interest @ 9% p.a from the date of repudiation of the claim till the realization of the decretal amount alongwith the costs of the suit. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the license of the driver who was driving the vehicle in question was fake. Counsel for the appellant therefore submits that the claim filed by the respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellant company due to the breach of the policy terms. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the ld. Trial court overlooked the fact that the respondent himself has given consent to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- excluding the value of salvage and therefore the respondent is estopped under law to have claimed a higher amount than the agreed amount. Counsel for the appellant also contends that ld. Trial Court also committed another illegality by not deducting the value of the salvage and decreed the suit for the total insured sum. Drawing attention of this court to the written arguments filed by the respondent, the counsel contends that the respondent in his written arguments has claimed the total loss at Rs.2,42,500/- himself but ignoring the stand of the respondent the ld. Trial Court has granted a decree for an amount more than what has been claimed by the respondent. Based on these submissions the counsel states that the said decree passed by the ld. Trial Court is liable to be set aside.