UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MUMTAZ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue on which the challenge is, whether Jagroop Singh or Jagdev was the real driver of the vehicle and whether the licence of a person, who was not arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet, can be arrayed as respondent in the claim petition and be shown as driver. It is an admitted position of fact as is evident from the record that it was Jagroop, who was arrayed as respondent in the claim petition but it was Jagdev, his brother, who was shown as driver both in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet.

(2.) The fact are not discussed as accident in question is not disputed. The quantum is also not in dispute. The involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. The disputes are regarding fraud played with the insurance company and the Tribunal by the owner. Though enough opportunity is given, no evidence is led to show that there was no misrepresentation.

(3.) Going through the factual scenario, the Tribunal/has fallen in error in holding against the insurance company. It goes without saying that insurance company has proved before this Court that there was either misrepresentation on the part of the owner or it was a fraud. The owner has not appeared before this Court despite notice have been received by the owner. In that view of the matter, the insurance company is granted right of recovery as the money were deposited with this Court and as it is proved that it was Jagroop, who was in fact driving the vehicle and his evidence was never produced before the Court below as he was very surreptitiously not arrayed as respondent. His driving licence was in fact not there and, therefore, a fraud on the Tribunal was played so as to show that it was Jagroop, who was the driver and arrayed as party and, therefore, both these aspects go against the owner and there is clear breach of policy under Sec. 149, therefore recovery rights are given to the insurance company.