GURMESH SINGH Vs. LATA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the ex parte award dated 06.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby compensation in the sum of ' 15,36,754/- was awarded to the respondents No.1 to 4 along with interest thereon and the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by the said Tribunal whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said ex parte award was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell are that on 01.01.2006, one Jitender Gupta met with a road accident sustaining grievous injuries, to which he succumbed on 05.01.2006. THE respondents No.1 to 4, being his legal heirs, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation. Pursuant to the filing of the said Claim Petition, notices were directed to be issued to the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company of the alleged offending vehicle. THE Insurance Company, namely, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which is arrayed as the respondent No.6 in the present appeal, filed a written statement denying its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. In the said written statement, a number of preliminary objections and pleas in defence were raised including inter-alia a vague plea that in the absence of any information from the insured and in view of the non-supply of driving licence by the respondents, the Claim Petition filed by the claimants was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) MR. Rajat Aneja, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned orders did not take into consideration the fact that the appellant, being the owner of the vehicle, was under a bonafide belief that since his vehicle was insured with the respondent No.6 herein, the principal liability to pay compensation would be of the Insurance Company. The appellant thus did not appear after 22.02.2006, when he had entered appearance only to be re-assured by Shri Naveen Gupta, the counsel for the Insurance Company, who had informed him that the only issue which was required to be considered by the Tribunal was whether there was a valid insurance policy. MR. Aneja further contended that the circumstances thus warranted the setting aside of the ex parte award so as to afford an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence to the effect that he was not aware that the licence of the driver engaged by him was a fake one and that he (the appellant) had engaged the driver in good faith, after examining the driving licence of the driver which appeared to be genuine on the face of it and after ensuring that the said driver was competent to drive the vehicle. MR. Aneja also contended that the denial by the learned Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the appellant to defend his case had resulted in serious civil consequences to the appellant, who had been fastened with a huge liability of more than ' 18 lakhs. He stated that the appellant is a Government servant having retired as a Gazetted Officer from the National Technical Research Organisation on 30.04.2009 and has no means to pay such a huge amount at the fag end of his life. He submitted that there was no wilful breach of the terms of the insurance policy on the part of the appellant, and as such the insurer could not seek to recover the award amount from the insured.