MAC. APP. 334/2010. Case: Ved Parkash Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberMAC. APP. 334/2010
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Shivali Bansal, Advocate
JudgesG. P. Mittal, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rule 13
Judgement DateDecember 11, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

G. P. Mittal, J.

  1. The Appellant Ved Parkash who is the owner of the offending Truck No. UP-14C-0136 impugns a judgment dated 26.05.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of ` 3,60,000/- in favour of Respondents No. 3 to 11. Respondent No. 1 was granted recovery rights against the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by permitting the driver Ram Sudhar to drive the offending vehicle on the basis of the fake driving licence. In fact, after passing the order dated 26.05.2003 an Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was moved by the Appellant. The order dated 26.05.21003 was suspended to the extent it granted recovery rights against the Appellant and an inquiry was ordered to be held into question whether the Appellant committed a breach of the terms and conditions of policy by an order dated 07.01.2010. The Claims Tribunal held as under:-

  2. Subsequent to the aforesaid order one application was filed by R2 Ved Parkash owner of the vehicle u/O 9 Rule 13 CPC on 2.9.2006 upon which the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.2.2007 allowed this application and observed that operative part of the award regarding the liability as dealt with by the aforesaid judgment dated 26.5.2003 stands suspended. Consequently the execution petition filed by the insurance company was also kept in abeyance subject to R2 giving security to the extend of 50% of the amount sought to be executed. R2 thereafter submitted the security by depositing a FDR of the State Bank of Patiala of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith security bond.

  3. R2 owner of the vehicle has thereafter summoned the witness from the office of Transport Authority, New Delhi Zone, Delhi Govt., Delhi and also filed affidavit of driver of the offending vehicle and examined him as R2W2 and also filed affidavit of evidence and examined himself as R2W3. Insurance company summoned the witness from Licensing Authority, Mall Road.

  4. It may be noted that driver of the offending vehicle had also appeared as RW1 in the course of the initial inquiry and was examined as such on 16.5.2001. His claim is that he was having a valid driving license on the date of accident on 21.1.95 (sic 21.06.95) which was submitted by him after expiry of the same at Transport Authority Faridabad while applying for renewal of license. While appearing as RW1 he has also produced on record his current...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT