BALJINDER KAUR Vs. SANJIV SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Insurance Company can repudiate a claim made by the legal representatives of a deceased person in respect of a vehicle which is duly insured with the Company solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid licence even though the vehicle was stationary at the time of the accident and the driver of the vehicle had nothing to do with the accident?

(2.) Concisely, the facts are that on 28.06.2005 at about 6:30 p.m. one Gurcharan Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") met with an accident while welding a stationary truck bearing Registration No. HR-38-G-5351, at Transport Nagar, Samaipur Badli, Delhi, and died due to electrocution. A DD entry bearing No.19-A dated 28.06.2005 was recorded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. with regard to the aforesaid accident by the Police of Police Station, Samaipur Badli, Delhi. A claim petition was filed by the appellant No.1, who is the widow, the appellants No.2, 3 and 4, who are the minor children and the appellants No.5 and 6, who are the parents of the deceased under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation in the sum of 10,00,000/- for the untimely demise of their sole bread-earner. The respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the offending truck No.HR-38-G-5351, which was admittedly insured with the respondent No.2, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited for all such risks vide policy No.215400/2005/863 valid from 12.07.2004 to 11.07.2005 (Exhibit R2W1/E).

(3.) The learned Tribunal by its judgment dated 06.08.2007awarded a sum of 5,18,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of the institution of the petition till the date of actual deposit. On the question as to upon whom the liability to pay could be fastened, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Meena Variyal and Ors., 2007 ACJ 1284, the Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle who gets the vehicle insured is duty-bound to engage a driver who has a valid and effective driving licence and is competent to drive. It further held that it was the duty of the insured to produce the driving licence of the driver and prove the same in accordance with law, but in the present case despite service of notice under Order XII Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure the insured had chosen not to come up with the driving licence of his driver. It held that in such circumstances, the Court had no option but to draw adverse inference against the Respondent No.1 that his driver never possessed any driving licence. The Tribunal accordingly held that no liability could be fastened upon the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and, accordingly, the respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, was liable to pay the award amount to the appellants.