UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 45/1999
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for
the respondents No.1 to 3
% Date of Decision : January 24, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the award
dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
New Delhi.
FAO 45/1999 Page 1 of 3
2. The sole grievance of the appellant is with regard to the
findings rendered by the Tribunal on Issue No.1, which read as
follows:
“Issue no.1
The law is well settled that it is for the
Insurance company to firstly establish that
there was a condition in the Insurance policy
regarding the plying of vehicle by a duly
licensed driver, and secondly to prove that this
condition was violated. In this case, I do not
find any evidence of the driving licence of the
driver being seized by police nor it has been
placed on record in original in the court, by the
Insurance company. It has also not produced
the original insurance policy to prove the
condition which was violated. The company
has examined RW1 a clerk from the
Department of Transport, to say that driving
licence no.81/1680, was not in the name of
driver but in the name of one Subash Chander.
In the absence of any evidence, as to seizure of
this very licence by the police, or its production
by respondent no.1, as his licence, the evidence
of RW1, has no feet to stand and it proves
nothing. In the light of these facts and state of
evidence, I hold that respondent has failed to
prove its plea of driving of the offending vehicle
by Respondent no.1 without licence. This issue
is, therefore, decided against the respondent
Insurance company and in favour of
petitioner.”
FAO 45/1999 Page 2 of 3
3. At the time of hearing, a specific query was put to Mr. Pankaj
Seth, the learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate from where
driving licence No.81/1680 had been procured by the Insurance
Company, since it was apparent from the record that no driving
licence had been seized by the police at the time of the accident. Mr.
Seth has not been able to give any cogent answer to the query and is
unable to say as to how the number of this driving licence was
procured by the Insurance Company and as to why the clerk from the
Department of Transport was called upon to produce this particular
licence. This being the situation, it is apparent that there was no
justification for the Insurance Company to presume that driving
licence No.81/1680 was that of the driver of the offending vehicle in
this case, namely, Satyavir Singh.
4. For the aforesaid reason, I find no merit in this appeal, which is
accordingly dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
January 24, 2011
km
FAO 45/1999 Page 3 of 3