ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KUNAL SADH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has impugned the judgment dated 21.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.32,62,536/ - along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 to 5/claimants for death of Subodh Kumar Sadh, who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 19.06.2009 at 5:30 a.m. on Shikohpur Mor, Gurgaon on Delhi Jaipur Highway.

(2.) ALTHOUGH in the appeal, the quantum of compensation awarded has been disputed, but at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant only presses for grant of recovery rights against the owner and driver i.e. Respondents no.6 and 7. Respondent no.7 preferred not to contest the proceedings despite service and appeared on 20.01.2014 and Respondent no.6 preferred not to contest the proceedings despite service through publication in Dainik Hindustan Mathura Edition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Appellant urges that the Appellant did prove willful breach of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the owner by examining the Clerk, ARTO Office, Mathura, UP. and proving that the licence issued in favour of the driver, Respondent no.6 was fake, yet recovery rights were not granted to it solely on the ground that no notice was issued by the Appellant Insurance Company to the driver telling him that the licence held by him was found to be fake. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that it was not expected or required from the Appellant (Insurance Company) to have intimated the driver that the licence held by him was fake. It is further urged that the Appellant was only obliged to prove that the licence held by the driver was fake and then it was for the owner to have established that he had taken appropriate steps to hand over the vehicle only to a person who possessed a valid licence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Appellant relies on an order of this Court in Subhash Jindal v. Asha Kumar and Ors., FAO No.589/2002 decided on 21.10.2005. Paras 3 to 9 of the order are extracted hereunder: